title: Case C-624/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 October 2018 — CP v Sąd Najwyższy

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/10

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 October 2018 — CP v Sąd Najwyższy
      (Case C-624/18)
      (2019/C 44/14)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Najwyższy

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: CP

         Respondent: Sąd Najwyższy

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) …, be interpreted as meaning that, where an appeal is brought before a court of last instance in a Member State against an alleged infringement of the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age in respect of a judge of that court, together with a motion for granting security in respect of the reported claim, that court — in order to protect the rights arising from EU law by ordering an interim measure provided for under national law — must refuse to apply national provisions which confer jurisdiction, in the case in which the appeal was lodged, on an organisational unit of that court which is not operational by reason of a failure to appoint judges adjudicating within it?

                  2.

                  In the event that judges are appointed to adjudicate within the organisational unit having jurisdiction under national law to hear and determine the action brought, on a proper construction of the third subparagraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is a newly-created chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which has jurisdiction to hear the case of a national court judge at first or second instance and which is composed exclusively of judges selected by a national body tasked with safeguarding the independence of the courts, namely the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), which, having regard to the systemic model for the way in which it is formed and the way in which it operates, is not guaranteed to be independent from the legislative and executive authorities, an independent court or tribunal within the meaning of EU law?

                  3.

                  If the answer to the second question is negative, should the third subparagraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which does not have jurisdiction in the case but meets the requirements of EU law for a court seised with an appeal in an EU case should disregard the provisions of national legislation which preclude it from having jurisdiction in that case?

         (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-625/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 October 2018 — DO v Sąd Najwyższy

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/10

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 October 2018 — DO v Sąd Najwyższy
      (Case C-625/18)
      (2019/C 44/15)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Najwyższy

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: DO

         Respondent: Sąd Najwyższy

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where an appeal is brought before a court of last instance in a Member State against an alleged infringement of the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age in respect of a judge of that court, together with a motion for granting security in respect of the reported claim, that court — in order to protect the rights arising from EU law by ordering an interim measure provided for under national law — must refuse to apply national provisions which confer jurisdiction, in the case in which the appeal was lodged, on an organisational unit of that court which is not operational by reason of a failure to appoint judges adjudicating within it?

                  2.

                  In the event that judges are appointed to adjudicate within the organisational unit having jurisdiction under national law to hear and determine the action brought, on a proper construction of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is a newly-created chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which has jurisdiction to hear the case of a national court judge at first or second instance and which is composed exclusively of judges selected by a national body tasked with safeguarding the independence of the courts, namely the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), which, having regard to the systemic model for the way in which it is formed and the way in which it operates, is not guaranteed to be independent from the legislative and executive authorities, an independent court or tribunal within the meaning of EU law?

                  3.

                  If the answer to the second question is negative, should the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which does not have jurisdiction in the case but which meets the requirements of EU law for a court seised with an appeal in an EU case, should disregard the provisions of national legislation which preclude it from having jurisdiction in that case?

         (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-653/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 October 2018 — Unitel Sp. z o.o. w Warszawie v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/11

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 October 2018 — Unitel Sp. z o.o. w Warszawie v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie
      (Case C-653/18)
      (2019/C 44/16)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Unitel Sp. z o.o. w Warszawie

         Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  In the light of Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and of the principles of taxation of consumption, neutrality and proportionality, should the correct national practice be to apply an exemption with the right to deduct (which in Poland means application of a 0 % rate) in each case where both of the following conditions are met:

                              (a)

                              the goods have been exported to an unidentified recipient outside the European Union; and

                              (b)

                              there is clear evidence that the goods have left the territory of the European Union, and this is not disputed?

                  2.

                  Do the provisions of Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Directive 2006/112/EC and the principles of taxation of consumption, neutrality and proportionality preclude a national practice whereby it is assumed that no supply of goods has taken place in the case where the goods have been indubitably exported outside the territory of the European Union, and following their exportation the tax authorities establish in the course of their investigation that the person actually acquiring the goods was not the entity to whom the taxable person issued the invoice documenting the supply, but was another entity unidentified by the authorities, as a result of which the authorities refuse to exempt such a transaction from tax with the right to deduct (which in Poland means application of a 0 % rate)?

                  3.

                  In the light of Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Directive 2006/112/EC and of the principles of taxation of consumption, neutrality and proportionality, should the correct national practice be to apply the domestic rate to the supply of goods where there is clear evidence that the goods have left the territory of the European Union, but the authorities, in the absence of an identified recipient, conclude that no supply of goods has taken place, or should it rather be assumed that no taxable transaction for VAT purposes has taken place at all in those circumstances and therefore that the taxable person is not entitled to deduct input VAT on the purchase of the exported goods under Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-668/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 October 2018 — BP v UNIPARTS sàrl, having its registered office in Nyon

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/12

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 October 2018 — BP v UNIPARTS sàrl, having its registered office in Nyon
      (Case C-668/18)
      (2019/C 44/17)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Najwyższy

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Claimant: BP

         Defendant: UNIPARTS sàrl, having its registered office in Nyon

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with the third sentence of Article 4(3) TEU and Article 2 TEU, the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the irremovability of judges, forming part of the principle of effective judicial protection and of the principle of the rule of law, is infringed in every case where a national legislature lowers the retirement age for judges of the court of last instance in a Member State (for example, from 70 to 65 years) and applies the new lower retirement age to judges in active service, without leaving the decision on whether to take advantage of the lower retirement age to the sole discretion of the judge concerned?

                  2.

                  Should the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with the third sentence of Article 4(3) TEU and Article 2 TEU, the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the rule of law and the standard of independence required to ensure effective judicial protection in cases involving EU law are infringed when a national legislature, in breach of the principle of the irremovability of judges, lowers the normal age at which a judge of the court of last instance in a Member State may hold a judicial post from 70 to 65 years, such that continuing in that post is dependent on the discretionary consent of an executive body?

                  3.

                  Should Article 2, in conjunction with Article 6(1), of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) be interpreted as meaning that lowering the retirement age of judges of the court of last instance in a Member State, and making the possibility for an existing judge of that court who has reached the new lower retirement age to continue in his post dependent on the consent of an executive body, constitute discrimination on grounds of age?

                  4.

                  Should Articles 2, 9 and 11 of Directive 2000/78, in conjunction with Articles 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that in the case of discrimination on grounds of age of the judges of the court of final instance in a Member State, consisting in the lowering of the retirement age from the current 70 years to 65 years, that court — adjudicating in any case with the participation of a judge affected by the effects of such discriminatory national provisions who has not expressed a willingness to take advantage of the new retirement age — is required, when deciding the preliminary issue of the composition of the court, to refuse to apply national provisions that are contrary to Directive 2000/78 and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to continue to adjudicate with the participation of that judge where that is the only effective means of ensuring effective judicial protection of the rights of judges under EU law?

         (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-684/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 6 November 2018 — World Comm Trading Gfz SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/13

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 6 November 2018 — World Comm Trading Gfz SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești
      (Case C-684/18)
      (2019/C 44/18)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel București

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: World Comm Trading Gfz SRL

         Respondents: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of VAT neutrality (1) preclude national legislation (or an administrative practice based on unclear legislation) which denies an undertaking the right to deduct VAT in proportion to the value of a discount applied to national supplies of goods on the ground that the tax invoice issued by the intra-Community supplier (as representative of an economic group) shows the global discount granted for both intra-Community and domestic products supplied under the same framework agreement but recorded as purchased from the Member State of reference (from one member of the group, with a different VAT number from that borne by the invoice relating to the discount)?

                  2.

                  In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, does the principle of proportionality mean that the beneficiary cannot be denied the right to deduct VAT in proportion to the value of the discount granted globally by the intra-Community supplier in the case where the local supplier (a member of the same group) has ceased its economic activity and can no longer reduce the taxable amount of the supplies by issuing an invoice bearing its own VAT number, for the purpose of reimbursement of the excess VAT collected?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-709/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Špecializovaný trestný súd (Slovakia) lodged on 14 November 2018 — Criminal proceedings against UL and VM

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/14

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Špecializovaný trestný súd (Slovakia) lodged on 14 November 2018 — Criminal proceedings against UL and VM
      (Case C-709/18)
      (2019/C 44/19)
      Language of the case: Slovak

         Referring court

      Špecializovaný trestný súd

         Parties to the main proceedings

      UL and VM

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the rule of the presumption of innocence — enshrined in Articles 3 and 4, read in conjunction with recital 16, of Directive (EU) 2016/343 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings — observed where a co-defendant in joint criminal proceedings, on the basis of the indictment and after the commencement of the main hearing, denies participation in the act or acts alleged against him, declaring himself to be innocent, and, subsequently, the court, by means of an order which contains no description of the act or its legal qualification or any assessment on the court’s part, decides to accept the declaration of another co-defendant that he is guilty of committing one or more of the acts described in the indictment, thus waiving his right to the taking of evidence regarding his guilt, and, subsequently, after the taking of evidence at the main hearing, the court reaches its decision on the indictment in a joint judgment?

                              1.1

                              Where the decision of a court to accept the declaration of guilt of one co-defendant denotes another co-defendant — who has denied guilt — as being guilty, before evidence is taken which proves him to be guilty, is that manner of proceeding in accordance with Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

                  2.

                  Is it consistent with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — which enshrines the right to a fair trial and the right of every person to have his case dealt with fairly by an independent and impartial tribunal — where, in joint proceedings on a common indictment against several defendants, the lawful judge decides at the beginning of the proceedings, by means of an order which contains no description of the act or its legal qualification or any assessment on the court’s part, to accept the declaration of guilt of certain defendants, who thus waive their right to the taking of evidence regarding their guilt, and, subsequently, after the taking of evidence at the main hearing, on the basis of the indictment, then decides the cases of all the defendants?

                              2.1

                              Where a decision to accept the declaration of guilt of a co-defendant gives rise to a well-founded doubt regarding the impartiality of the court which accepted that declaration, is the possible disqualification of that court from dealing with the case an appropriate measure to safeguard the rule of the presumption of innocence as required by Article 4(2) of Directive 2016/343?

                  3.

                  Are the values of equality and of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, signed in Maastricht on 7 February 1992, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007, the principle of the equality of citizens before judicial authorities under Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union and the general EU-law principle which establishes the right of every person to have his case heard fairly, pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union, safeguarded in a situation in which a national court against whose decisions there is no right of appeal adopts a decision in a manner inconsistent with an opinion on unification of the interpretation of the law of a national court which has been adopted by that court on the basis of the mandate conferred on it by national legislation to unify the interpretation of the law and other normative acts of general application where that is necessary in order to resolve inconsistencies in case-law or where one chamber of the Supreme Court has departed from a legal opinion contained in a decision of another chamber of the Supreme Court?

         (1)  OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1.


title: Case C-725/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 22 November 2018 — Anton van Zantbeek VOF; other party: Ministerraad

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/15

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 22 November 2018 — Anton van Zantbeek VOF; other party: Ministerraad
      (Case C-725/18)
      (2019/C 44/20)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Grondwettelijk Hof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Anton van Zantbeek VOF

         Other party: Ministerraad

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which introduces a tax on stock exchange transactions, as referred to in Articles 120 and 1262 of the Belgian Wetboek diverse rechten en taksen (Code of miscellaneous duties and taxes), and which results in the Belgian issuer of an order becoming liable for that tax in the case where the professional intermediary is established outside Belgium?

                  2.

                  Should Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which introduces a tax on stock exchange transactions, as referred to in Articles 120 and 1262 of the Belgian Wetboek diverse rechten en taksen, and which results in the Belgian issuer of an order becoming liable for that tax in the case where the professional intermediary is established outside Belgium?

                  3.

                  If, on the basis of the reply to the first or second question referred for a preliminary ruling, the Grondwettelijk Hof were to conclude that the contested articles infringe one or more of the obligations arising from the provisions cited in those questions, could it temporarily continue to enforce the effects of Articles 120 and 1262 of the Belgian Wetboek diverse rechten en taksen in order to prevent legal uncertainty and to enable the legislature to bring those provisions into conformity with those obligations?


title: Case C-735/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 26 November 2018 — IZ v Ryanair DAC

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/16

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 26 November 2018 — IZ v Ryanair DAC
      (Case C-735/18)
      (2019/C 44/21)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: IZ

         Defendant: Ryanair DAC

         Questions referred

      The request for a preliminary ruling relating to the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, (1) is worded as follows:

                  —

                  Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, be interpreted as meaning that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, is to be regarded as an event inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier and, accordingly, cannot be classified as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ exonerating the air carrier from its obligation to compensate passengers in the case where a flight operated by the aircraft concerned is cancelled?

                  —

                  If an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, is to be regarded as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, must it be inferred from this that, for the air carrier, this is an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken?

                  —

                  Must the fact that the strike was announced be regarded as having the effect that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91?

                  —

                  Having regard to recital 15 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, must it be found that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, constituted, for the air carrier, an extraordinary circumstance which could not have been avoided and entitled that carrier, as a reasonable measure in order to avoid further cancellations, to take the decision to cancel the flight at issue so as to avoid a situation in which its crews would no longer be able to operate other flights on the day of the strike, thereby minimising overall the disruption and inconvenience caused by the strike to its passengers as a whole?

         (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-742/18 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2018 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2018 in Case T-627/16, Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/17

      Appeal brought on 27 November 2018 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2018 in Case T-627/16, Czech Republic v Commission
      (Case C-742/18 P)
      (2019/C 44/22)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, O. Serdula, J. Vláčil, J. Pavliš, agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden

         Re:

      Appeal in cassation against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union dated 13 September 2018 in Case T-627/16, Czech Republic v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed in part the Czech Republic’s application for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 (1) of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2016) 3753), so far as concerns the part excluding expenditure by the Czech Republic.

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside point 2 of the operative part of the General Court’s judgment in Case T-627/16 and the corresponding part of the judgment;

                  —

                  annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1059 in so far as it excludes expenditure amounting to EUR 462 517,83 in connection with the single area payment;

                  —

                  annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1059 in so far as it excludes expenditure amounting to EUR 636 516,20 in connection with investments in the wine sector; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appellant relies on four grounds in support of its appeal in cassation.
      The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (2) in conjunction with Articles 26 and 31 of Regulation No 1122/2009. (3) The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that on-the-spot checks in the form of remote sensing and classical on-the-spot checks must have the same or a comparable error rate. Such a requirement is not apparent from any provision of EU law or from the nature of the inspection methods concerned. On the contrary, the method of selecting samples for inspection differs so much in respect of both methods, for reasons particular to those methods, that conclusions as to their effectiveness cannot be rendered conditional on the same or a comparable error rate.
      The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 in conjunction with Article 33 of Regulation No 1122/2009. The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that if over-declaration at the rate of 3 % of the area determined has been identified, the sample inspected must in all circumstances be increased until no over-declaration is identified, even in the situation where the national authorities may be certain, on the basis of the specific circumstances of the case in question, that, in the other parcels of the farmer concerned, no further errors may be expected in the declaration of the agricultural area.
      The third ground of appeal is based on infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 in conjunction with Article 112 of Regulation No 1605/2002, (4) or as the case may be Article 130 of Regulation No 966/2012. (5) The Tribunal grossly distorted the substance of the dispute between the Czech Republic and the Commission, and erred in law when it concluded that the correction imposed was exclusively connected with the retroactive financing of the investments made prior to the implementation of the national programme of support. In connection with the investigation concerned the Commission took issue with any retroactive financing of investments in the wine sector. The Tribunal therefore erred when it failed to address in any way the Czech Republic’s arguments that the retroactive financing of investments made after the approval of the national programme of support was in accordance with EU law.
      The fourth ground of appeal is based on infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 in conjunction with Article 19 and Article 77 of Regulation No 555/2008 (6) and Article 27 of Regulation No 1975/2006, (7) or as the case may be Article 25 of Regulation No 65/2011. (8) The applicant claims that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that at the material time 100 % of the investments made in the wine sector should have been subject to on-the-spot checks, despite the fact that Article 77(5) of Regulation No 555/2008, through the express reference to Article 27 of Regulation No 1975/2006, allowed checks to be carried out on a sample only of the investments made.

         (1)  OJ 2016 L 173, p. 59.

         (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.

         (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65.

         (4)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1.

         (5)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1.

         (6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector, OJ 2008 L 170, p. 1.

         (7)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures, OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74.

         (8)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures, OJ 2011 L 25, p. 8.


title: Cases T-274/16 and T-275/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Saleh Thabet and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt — Freezing of funds — Objectives — Criteria for inclusion of persons targeted — Renewal of the applicants’ designation on the list of persons targeted — Factual basis — Plea of illegality — Legal basis — Proportionality — Right to a fair trial — Presumption of innocence — Principle of good administration — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/19

      Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Saleh Thabet and Others v Council
      (Cases T-274/16 and T-275/16) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt - Freezing of funds - Objectives - Criteria for inclusion of persons targeted - Renewal of the applicants’ designation on the list of persons targeted - Factual basis - Plea of illegality - Legal basis - Proportionality - Right to a fair trial - Presumption of innocence - Principle of good administration - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection))
      (2019/C 44/23)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant in Case T-274/16: Suzanne Saleh Thabet (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, G. Martin, M. Rushton and C. Enderby Smith, Solicitors)

         Applicants in Case T-275/16: Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo), Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo), Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh (Cairo), Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal (Cairo) (represented by: B. Kennelly, J. Pobjoy, G. Martin, M. Rushton and C. Enderby Smith)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: S. Kyriakopoulou and M. Veiga, and subsequently by S. Kyriakopoulou and J. Kneale, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 of 18 March 2016 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2016 L 74, p. 40); (ii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/496 of 21 March 2017 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2017 L 76, p. 22); and (iii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/491 of 21 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2017 L 76, p. 10), in so far as those acts apply to the applicants.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Orders that Cases T-274/16 and T-275/16 be joined for the purposes of the judgment;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the actions;

                  3.

                  Orders Ms Suzanne Saleh Thabet, Mr Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Mr Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Ms Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh and Ms Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Joined Cases T-314/16 and T-435/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — VG v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents and information relating to a decision of the Commission to put an end to a ‘letter of agreement and membership of Team Europe’ — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the protection of individuals — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Refusal of transfer — Articles 7, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/20

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — VG v Commission
      (Joined Cases T-314/16 and T-435/16) (1)

      ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents and information relating to a decision of the Commission to put an end to a ‘letter of agreement and membership of Team Europe’ - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the protection of individuals - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Refusal of transfer - Articles 7, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Non-contractual liability))
      (2019/C 44/24)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: VG, as the sole heir of Ms (represented initially by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, and subsequently by: L. Levi, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Simon, and subsequently by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 2 February and 19 April 2016 rejecting MS’ application for access to the documents concerning him and of 16 June 2016 rejecting his request to transfer to him the personal data concerning him contained in the documents covered by that application for access and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by Ms on account of that refusal of access and transfer.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 16 June 2016 rejecting MS’ request to transfer to him certain personal data;

                  2.

                  Orders the Commission to pay VG, as the sole heir of MS, a sum of EUR 5 000;

                  3.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  4.

                  Orders VG and the Commission to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case T-329/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma v Commission and EMA (Medicinal products for human use — Orphan medicinal products — Decision withdrawing the designation of Elotuzumab as an orphan medicinal product — Decision that the designation criteria were no longer met — Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use Empliciti (Elotuzumab) — Article 5(12)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 — Article 5(8) of Regulation No 141/2000 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/21

      Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma v Commission and EMA
      (Case T-329/16) (1)

      ((Medicinal products for human use - Orphan medicinal products - Decision withdrawing the designation of Elotuzumab as an orphan medicinal product - Decision that the designation criteria were no longer met - Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use Empliciti (Elotuzumab) - Article 5(12)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 - Article 5(8) of Regulation No 141/2000 - Obligation to state reasons))
      (2019/C 44/25)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma EEIG (Uxbridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Bogaert and B. Van Vooren, lawyers, and B. Kelly, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and K. Petersen, acting as Agents) and European Medicines Agency (represented by: N. Rampal Olmedo, M. Tovar Gomis, T. Jabłoński and S. Drosos, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of an act adopted by the Commission removing Elotuzumab from the Community Register of orphan medicinal products for human use and/or of a possible act adopted by the Commission or the EMA determining that Elotuzumab no longer met the criteria for designation as an orphan medicinal product when the marketing authorisation was granted for the medicinal product Empliciti (Elotuzumab) under Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay all the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case T-459/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Spain v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Deficiencies in the IACS — Permanent pastures — Risk for the fund — Document VI/5330/97 — Article 73a(2a) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Article 81(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 — Flat-rate corrections of 25 % and 10 %)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/21

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Spain v Commission
      (Case T-459/16) (1)

      ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Deficiencies in the IACS - Permanent pastures - Risk for the fund - Document VI/5330/97 - Article 73a(2a) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Article 81(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 - Flat-rate corrections of 25 % and 10 %))
      (2019/C 44/26)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: D. Triantafyllou, then by: I. Galindo Martín, N. Ruiz García and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 173, p. 59).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it concerns the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain and in so far as it imposes

                              —

                              a flat-rate correction of 25 % regarding wooded grazing pastures for the claim years 2010 to 2013; and

                              —

                              a flat-rate correction of 10 % regarding shrub pastures declared by the ‘rearers’ for the claim years 2010 to 2013;

                  2)

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3)

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case T-517/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Janoha and Others v Commission (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 — Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — New provisions relating to the days of leave granted applicable to officials posted in a third country — Objection of illegality — Second paragraph of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations — Articles 7 and 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Equal treatment — Acquired rights — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Misuse of powers)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/22

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Janoha and Others v Commission
      (Case T-517/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 - Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - New provisions relating to the days of leave granted applicable to officials posted in a third country - Objection of illegality - Second paragraph of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations - Articles 7 and 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Equal treatment - Acquired rights - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Misuse of powers))
      (2019/C 44/27)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Andrea Janoha (Christ Church, Barbados) and the other five applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decisions reducing the number of the applicants’ days of annual leave as of 2014.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Andrea Janoha and the other members of the contract staff of the European Commission whose names are set out in the annex, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay those incurred by the Commission;

                  3.

                  Declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-86/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-560/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Schneider v EUIPO (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Internal reorganisation of EUIPO’s services — Redeployment — Legal basis — Article 7 of the Staff Regulations — Interests of the service — Significant change in tasks — Equivalence of posts — Covert penalty — Misuse of powers — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/24

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Schneider v EUIPO
      (Case T-560/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Internal reorganisation of EUIPO’s services - Redeployment - Legal basis - Article 7 of the Staff Regulations - Interests of the service - Significant change in tasks - Equivalence of posts - Covert penalty - Misuse of powers - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons))
      (2019/C 44/29)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Gregor Schneider (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Executive Director of EUIPO of 2 October 2014 to redeploy the applicant from the International Cooperation and Legal Affairs Department to the Operations Department of EUIPO.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Gregor Schneider to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  C 328, 5.10.2015 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under case number F-116/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-688/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Janssen-Cases v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Commission Mediator — Competent appointing authority — Delegation of powers — Procedure — Consultation of the Staff Committee — Liability)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/24

      Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Janssen-Cases v Commission
      (Case T-688/16) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Commission Mediator - Competent appointing authority - Delegation of powers - Procedure - Consultation of the Staff Committee - Liability))
      (2019/C 44/30)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Mercedes Janssen-Cases (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, and, subsequently, J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, and, subsequently, G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decision of 15 June 2016 appointing W as the Commission Mediator and the note of 16 June 2016 by which the Commission informed the applicant of the result of the selection procedure and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 15 June 2016 appointing W as the Commission Mediator and the note of 16 June 2016 by which the Commission informed Ms Mercedes Janssen-Cases of the result of the selection procedure for that post;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.

         (1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.


title: Case T-811/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Di Bernardo v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Competition notice — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Obligation to state reasons — Professional experience — Liability)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Di Bernardo v Commission
      (Case T-811/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Competition notice - Open competition - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Obligation to state reasons - Professional experience - Liability))
      (2019/C 44/32)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Danilo Di Bernardo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in the open competition on the basis of tests EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 of 10 August 2016 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for the recruitment of secretaries/clerks at grade SC 1 in the field of financial support and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the selection board in the open competition on the basis of tests EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 of 10 August 2016 not to include Mr Danilo Di Bernardo on the reserve list for the recruitment of secretaries/clerks at grade SC 1 in the field of financial support;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.


title: Case T-829/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Decision declaring ineligible certain expenditure of a political party for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year — Right to good administration — Legal certainty — Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 — Prohibition on the indirect financing of a national political party)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament
      (Case T-829/16) (1)

      ((Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Decision declaring ineligible certain expenditure of a political party for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year - Right to good administration - Legal certainty - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 - Prohibition on the indirect financing of a national political party))
      (2019/C 44/33)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Varaut, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 12 September 2016 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                  Orders Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-875/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Falcon Technologies International v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Evaluation report of a notified body within the meaning of the legislation on EC declarations of conformity of medical devices — Refusal of access — Exception relating to protection of commercial interests — Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination — Overriding public interest — Partial refusal of access)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/27

      Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Falcon Technologies International v Commission
      (Case T-875/16) (1)

      ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Evaluation report of a notified body within the meaning of the legislation on EC declarations of conformity of medical devices - Refusal of access - Exception relating to protection of commercial interests - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Overriding public interest - Partial refusal of access))
      (2019/C 44/34)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Falcon Technologies International LLC (Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: R. Sciaudone and G. Arpea, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6722 final of 14 October 2016 refusing to grant the applicant access to the document (DG (Santé) 2015-7552.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 6722 final of 14 October 2016, in so far as it refused partial access to the document DG (Santé) 2015-7552;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders Falcon Technologies International LLC and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.


title: Case T-31/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Portugal v Commission (EAGF — Expenditure excluded from financing — Specific measures in favour of the outermost regions — Article 12(c) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 — Technical assistance — Inspection measures — Procedural guarantees — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Portugal v Commission
      (Case T-31/17) (1)

      ((EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Specific measures in favour of the outermost regions - Article 12(c) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 - Technical assistance - Inspection measures - Procedural guarantees - Legitimate expectations))
      (2019/C 44/35)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Parties

         Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and A. Tavares de Almeida, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rechena and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 312, p. 26), in so far as it excludes from that financing in relation to the Portuguese Republic the amounts of EUR 460 202,73and of EUR 200 000 (Budget item 6701).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


title: Case T-152/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Sumner v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning an infringement procedure brought by the Commission against Ireland — Refusal of access — Exception concerning the protection of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption — Overriding public interest)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Sumner v Commission
      (Case T-152/17) (1)

      ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning an infringement procedure brought by the Commission against Ireland - Refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption - Overriding public interest))
      (2019/C 44/36)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Loreto Sumner (Leixlip, Ireland) (represented by: J. MacGuill and E. Martin-Vignerte, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented initially by: A. Joyce and L. Williams and subsequently by A. Joyce, M. Browne and G. Hodge, acting as Agents, and by A. Carroll, Barrister-at-Law)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 247 final of 13 January 2017 refusing access to documents relating to infringement procedure 2014/4131 brought against Ireland regarding the application of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Ms Loreto Sumner to pay the costs;

                  3.

                  Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case T-161/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2018 — Le Pen v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Power of the Secretary-General — Rights of the defence — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Misuse of power — Error of fact — Proportionality)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2018 — Le Pen v Parliament
      (Case T-161/17) (1)

      ((Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Power of the Secretary-General - Rights of the defence - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Misuse of power - Error of fact - Proportionality))
      (2019/C 44/37)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Marion Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: initially M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, then M. Ceccaldi, and lastly R. Bosselut, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 6 January 2017 concerning the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 41 554 unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, and of the debit note of 11 January 2017 relating thereto.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  orders Ms Marion Le Pen to bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

         (1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


title: Case T-214/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Out of the blue v EUIPO — Dubois and MFunds USA (FUNNY BANDS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark FUNNY BANDS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/30

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Out of the blue v EUIPO — Dubois and MFunds USA (FUNNY BANDS)
      (Case T-214/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark FUNNY BANDS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 44/38)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and A. Zarm, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl, J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Frédéric Dubois (Lasne, Belgium), MFunds USA LLC (Miami Beach, Florida, United States)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2017 (Case R 1081/2016-2) concerning invalidity proceedings between Out of the blue, of the one part, and Frédéric Dubois and MFunds USA, of the other part.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 January 2017 (Case R 1081/2016-2), in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division to reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU word mark FUNNY BANDS for ‘precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, not included in other classes; jewellery, jewellery; rings (jewellery); rings (jewellery); bracelets (jewellery); necklaces (jewellery); novelty key rings’ in Class 14, ‘rubber, gutta-percha, gum and products made of those materials, not included in other classes; flexible pipes, not of metal; rubber rings; unworked or semi-worked rubber; cords of rubber’ in Class 17 and ‘services of wholesale and retail of precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, jewellery, rings (jewellery), rings (jewellery), bracelets (jewellery), necklaces (jewellery), rubber, gutta-percha, gum and goods made from these materials, flexible pipes, not of metal’ in Class 35;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the action;

                  3.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.


title: Case T-315/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Hebberecht v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — EEAS — Posting — Post of Head of Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia — Decision refusing to extend the posting — Interest of the service — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Hebberecht v EEAS
      (Case T-315/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - EEAS - Posting - Post of Head of Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia - Decision refusing to extend the posting - Interest of the service - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment))
      (2019/C 44/40)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Chantal Hebberecht (Fourmies, France) (represented by B. Maréchal, lawyer)

         Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EEAS communicated to the applicant on 3 February 2017 rejecting her complaint against the decision of the EEAS not to extend her posting as Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia and, second, compensation for non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 30 June 2016 refusing the request of Ms Chantal Hebberecht to extend her posting as Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia by one year.

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

                  3.

                  Orders the EEAS to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.


title: Case T-372/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Bee-Fee Group (LV POWER ENERGY DRINK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark LV POWER ENERGY DRINK — Earlier EU figurative mark LV — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Bee-Fee Group (LV POWER ENERGY DRINK)
      (Case T-372/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark LV POWER ENERGY DRINK - Earlier EU figurative mark LV - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark))
      (2019/C 44/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bee-Fee Group Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: L. Karpierz, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 (Case R 906/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Louis Vuitton Malletier and Bee-Fee Group.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 March 2017 (Case R 906/2016-4);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier;

                  3.

                  Orders Bee-Fee Group Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier.

         (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case T-373/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Fulia Trading (LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE — Earlier EU figurative mark LV — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Fulia Trading (LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE)
      (Case T-373/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE - Earlier EU figurative mark LV - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark))
      (2019/C 44/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fulia Trading Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Karpierz, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 (Case R 1567/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Louis Vuitton Malletier and Fulia Trading.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 March 2017 (Case R 1567/2016-4);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier;

                  3.

                  Orders Fulia Trading Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier.

         (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case T-416/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese — Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino)
      (Case T-416/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese - Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 44/43)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Papouis Dairies Ltd (Nicosia), (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2759/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2759/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies Ltd;

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi;

                  3.

                  Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


title: Case T-417/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese — Earlier United Kingdom certification word mark HALLOUMI — Rejection of the opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese)
      (Case T-417/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese - Earlier United Kingdom certification word mark HALLOUMI - Rejection of the opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 44/44)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Papouis Dairies Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2650/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2650/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies Ltd;

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Cyprus;

                  3.

                  Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


title: Case T-458/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Shindler and Others v Council (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU — Agreement setting out the arrangements for withdrawal — Article 50 TEU — Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom with a view to conclusion of that agreement — UK citizens residing in another EU Member State — Preparatory act — Act not open to challenge — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Shindler and Others v Council
      (Case T-458/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Institutional law - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU - Agreement setting out the arrangements for withdrawal - Article 50 TEU - Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom with a view to conclusion of that agreement - UK citizens residing in another EU Member State - Preparatory act - Act not open to challenge - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 44/45)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Harry Shindler (Porto d’Ascoli, Italy) and 12 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (EU, Euratom) of 22 May 2017 authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for an agreement setting out the arrangements for that Member State’s withdrawal from the European Union (document XT 21016/17), including the annex to that decision establishing directives for the negotiation of that agreement (document XT 21016/17 ADD 1 REV 2).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action as being inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Declares that there is no longer any need to rule on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.

                  3.

                  Orders Mr Harry Shindler and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

                  4.

                  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-493/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — WL v ERCEA (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Administrative inquiry — Extension of a probationary period — Preparatory act — Dismissal — Notification of dismissal by email — Time for bringing a complaint — Starting point — Inadmissibility — Compliance with essential procedural requirements — Dismissal decision at the end of the probationary period — Breach of the relationship of trust — Liability — Request for a hearing made in the application but not reiterated in accordance with Article 106(2) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — WL v ERCEA
      (Case T-493/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Administrative inquiry - Extension of a probationary period - Preparatory act - Dismissal - Notification of dismissal by email - Time for bringing a complaint - Starting point - Inadmissibility - Compliance with essential procedural requirements - Dismissal decision at the end of the probationary period - Breach of the relationship of trust - Liability - Request for a hearing made in the application but not reiterated in accordance with Article 106(2) of the Rules of Procedure))
      (2019/C 44/46)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: WL (represented by: F. Elia, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (represented by: F. Sgritta and M. Chacón Mohedano, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application under Article 270 TFEU, first, for annulment of the decision of the ERCEA to dismiss the applicant orally on 10 January 2017, with immediate restoration of the employment relationship, and for an order that the ERCEA pay all remuneration that has accrued in the interim, second, for annulment of the decision of the ERCEA of 28 October 2016 to extend the applicant’s probationary period and for a finding that that probationary period had ended as of 1 November 2016, third, for annulment of the measures taken pursuant to an administrative inquiry by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) and of the inquiry report dated 7 November 2016 and for an order that the ERCEA delete that inquiry from the Human Resource Management information system and from any other database of the EU institutions, fourth, for annulment of the dismissal decision of the ERCEA dated 22 December 2016, as notified to the applicant on 24 January 2017, immediate restoration of the employment relationship and an order that the ERCEA pay damages in compensation for harm suffered in the form of remuneration that has accrued between the date of dismissal and the date of delivery of the judgment or, failing reintegration into employment, an order that the ERCEA pay damages for loss of earnings until the date stipulated for the end of the contract, which amounts to EUR 39 000, and, fifth, in any event, for an order that the ERCEA pay the applicant in the amount of EUR 300 000 in damages or any other amount, greater or lesser, as the Court may deem appropriate, on account of the serious damage to the applicant’s image and to her personal and professional reputation

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court hereby:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders WL to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


title: Case C-831/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 October 2018 in Case T-29/17, RQ v Commission

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/30

      Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 October 2018 in Case T-29/17, RQ v Commission
      (Case C-831/18 P)
      (2019/C 65/38)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings: RQ

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 24 October 2018 in Case T-29/17, in so far as it annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 1449 final of 2 March 2016 concerning a request to waive RQ’s immunity from legal proceedings;

                  —

                  dismiss the application for annulment brought by the respondent to the appeal before the General Court of the European Union and give a final ruling on the questions which form the subject-matter of the present appeal or, if the state of the proceedings does not permit judgment to be given by the Court, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

                  —

                  order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs incurred by the Commission both at first instance and in the present appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on three grounds of appeal:

                  1.

                  First, unlike the General Court, the Commission considers that the decision to waive immunity does not constitute an act adversely affecting the applicant and cannot therefore be the subject of an action for annulment. The judgment under appeal is therefore vitiated by an error in law in so far as it holds the application admissible.

                  2.

                  Secondly, the Commission considers that the judgment under appeal incorrectly interprets the right to be heard, enshrined in Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it is based on a misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 4(3) TEU (principle of cooperation in good faith) and the general principle of mutual confidence and trust between EU bodies and the authorities of the Member States.

                  3.

                  Thirdly, the Commission considers that the General Court erred in law in the characterisation of the Commission’s conduct in the present case by considering that the Commission did not adequately respect the applicant’s right to be heard.


title: Case T-122/18: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Shimano Europe (PRO)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/47

      Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Shimano Europe (PRO)
      (Case T-122/18) (1)

      (2019/C 65/62)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Case T-777/17: Action brought on 23 November 2017 — Pan v EUIPO — Entertainment One UK (TOBBIA)

text:
               22.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/61

         Action brought on 23 November 2017 — Pan v EUIPO — Entertainment One UK (TOBBIA)
   (Case T-777/17)
   (2018/C 022/82)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Xianhao Pan (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Oliva, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Entertainment One UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘TOBBIA’ — EU trade mark No 11 775 509

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 in Case R 1776/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in its entirety the contested decision.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Failure to state reasons, breach of the valuation method of the relationship between the brands as well as a lack of assessment as to the assessment of likelihood of confusion of the marks;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(b)(1) in relation to Article 53(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-721/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2017 — Sebastian Vollmer, Vera Sagalov v Swiss Global Air Lines AG

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2017 — Sebastian Vollmer, Vera Sagalov v Swiss Global Air Lines AG
   (Case C-721/17)
   (2018/C 123/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sebastian Vollmer, Vera Sagalov

      Defendant: Swiss Global Air Lines AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also exist in the case where a passenger fails to catch a direct connecting flight due to a delay in arrival of less than three hours, with the result that there is a delay in arrival at the final destination of three hours or more, but the two flights were operated by different air carriers?

               2.

               Can a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 also exist in the case where the different air carriers are part of the same corporate group?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-122/18: Action brought on 14 February 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/13

         Action brought on 14 February 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-122/18)
   (2018/C 123/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by having failed and by continuing to fail to ensure that the public authorities avoid exceeding the time limits of 30 or 60 calendar days for paying their trade debts, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1) and, in particular, its obligations as set out in Article 4 of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The evidence before the Commission, which is based on the information provided by the Italian Republic during the pre-litigation procedure, indicates that the payment periods of 30 and 60 days set out in Article 4 of Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment have been exceeded, not by individual entities but by entire categories of public authorities, not in relation to one individual commercial transaction but in terms of the average time taken to pay, that is, in respect of all the transactions concluded by those authorities, and, lastly, not over a limited period but consistently, from September 2014 until the date on which the present action was brought. The Commission therefore considers that sustained and systematic infringement of Article 4 of that directive has been established.


title: Case T-166/15: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — Gramberg v EUIPO — Mahdavi Sabet (Case for a mobile phone) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a case for a mobile phone — Disclosure of the design — Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — Gramberg v EUIPO — Mahdavi Sabet (Case for a mobile phone)
   (Case T-166/15) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a case for a mobile phone - Disclosure of the design - Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court))
   (2018/C 134/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Claus Gramberg (Essen, Germany) (represented: initially by S. Kettler, and subsequently by F. Klopmeier and G. Becker, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sorouch Mahdavi Sabet (Paris, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 January 2015 (Case R 460/2013-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Gramberg and Mr Mahdavi Sabet.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 January 2015 (Case R 460/2013-3);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Claus Gramberg, including the expenses necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.