title: Case C-328/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 February 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste-water treatment — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-implementation — Article 260(2) TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Lump sum — Periodic penalty payment)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 February 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-328/16) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste-water treatment - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-implementation - Article 260(2) TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Lump sum - Periodic penalty payment))
   (2018/C 134/06)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos, E. Manhaeve and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 24 June 2004, Commission v Greece (C-119/02, not published, EU:C:2004:385) the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Orders that, if the failure to fulfil obligations found in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, the Hellenic Republic be required to pay to the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 3 276 000 for each six-month period of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 24 June 2004, Commission v Greece (C-119/02, not published, EU:C:2004:385), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 24 June 2004, Commission v Greece (C-119/02, not published, EU:C:2004:385) has been complied with in full, the actual amount of which must be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total amount relating to each of those periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion representing the number of population equivalent units that have actually been brought into compliance with the judgment of 24 June 2004, Commission v Greece (C-119/02, not published, EU:C:2004:385), in the Thriasio Pedio area, at the end of the period in question, in comparison to the number of population equivalent units that have not been brought into compliance with the judgment of 24 June 2004, Commission v Greece (C-119/02, not published, EU:C:2004:385), on the day of delivery of the present judgment.

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 5 million.

               4.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Case T-50/18: Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Tassi v Court of Justice

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/22

         Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Tassi v Court of Justice
   (Case T-50/18)
   (2018/C 134/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Smaro Tassi (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: E. Kleani, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 23 November 2017 (reference 20173192) rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in respect of the freelance translator contract notice 2017/S 002-001564 for the Greek language.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant maintains that the contested decision was not accompanied by either a determinate set of criteria establishing the quality level of translations requested in the tender procedure or any kind of a correction sheet or a comparative report which might substantiate why, in the defendant’s view, the test translation submitted by the applicant failed to attain the minimum benchmark required. The applicant argues, in that regard, that the contested decision was not properly reasoned and that the selection procedure lacked transparency.


title: Case C-3/18 P: Order of the President of the Court of 1 March 2018 — Confédération européenne des associations d’horlogers-réparateurs (CEAHR) v European Commission, LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SA, Rolex, SA, The Swatch Group SA

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 1 March 2018 — Confédération européenne des associations d’horlogers-réparateurs (CEAHR) v European Commission, LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SA, Rolex, SA, The Swatch Group SA
   (Case C-3/18 P) (1)

   (2018/C 190/39)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Cases T-339/15 to T-343/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2018 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v EUIPO (shape of a petrol station) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU three-dimensional marks — Shape of a petrol station — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctiveness — Article 65(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 72(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Acts having fully upheld the applicant’s claims — Binding nature of the grounds of an order for reference — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2018 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v EUIPO (shape of a petrol station)
   (Cases T-339/15 to T-343/15) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Application for EU three-dimensional marks - Shape of a petrol station - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctiveness - Article 65(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 72(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Acts having fully upheld the applicant’s claims - Binding nature of the grounds of an order for reference - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2018/C 190/40)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (Płock, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, J. Rasiewicz and M. Kaczmarska, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and E. Sliwinska, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Five actions brought against the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2015 (Cases R 2245/2014-5, R 2247/2014-5, R 2248/2014-5, R 2249/2014-5 and R 2250/2014-5) concerning applications for registration of three-dimensional signs formed by the shape of a petrol station as EU trade marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the joinder of Cases T-339/15 to T-343/15 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions as inadmissible in respect of the goods and services which do not form part of the usual range of petrol stations (aviation fuel, petroleum coke, xylenes and wholesale fuel);

               3.

               Annuls the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 2 April 2015 (Cases R 2245/2014-5, R 2247/2014-5, R 2248/2014-5, R 2249/2014-5 and R 2250/2014-5) in respect of the goods and services other than those which do not form part of the usual range of petrol stations (aviation fuel, petroleum coke, xylenes and wholesale fuel) and which are covered by the marks applied for;

               4.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA, which shall bear one fifth of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case T-462/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2018 — Asia Leader International (Cambodia) v Commission (Dumping — Imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines — Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China — Regulation (EU) 2015/776 — Circumvention — Transhipment — Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036))

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2018 — Asia Leader International (Cambodia) v Commission
   (Case T-462/15) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines - Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Regulation (EU) 2015/776 - Circumvention - Transhipment - Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036)))
   (2018/C 190/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Asia Leader International (Cambodia) Co. Ltd (Tai Seng SEZ, Cambodia) (represented by: A. Bochon, lawyer, and R. MacLean, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Article 1(1) and (3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 of 18 May 2015 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not (OJ 2015 L 122, p. 4), to the extent that it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Asia Leader International (Cambodia) Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case T-675/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v Commission (Dumping — Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in China and Taiwan — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 — Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) — Normal value — Selection of the appropriate third country — Adjustments — Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation 2016/1036) — Calculation of the dumping margin — Adjustments — Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Regulation 2016/1036) — Injury — Causal link)

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v Commission
   (Case T-675/15) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in China and Taiwan - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Normal value - Selection of the appropriate third country - Adjustments - Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Calculation of the dumping margin - Adjustments - Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Injury - Causal link))
   (2018/C 190/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd (Taiyuan, China) (represented by: N. Niejahr, lawyer, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Eurofer, Association Européenne de l’Acier, ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Killick and G. Forwood, Barristers, and C. Van Haute, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ 2015 L 224, p. 10).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case C-196/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) — lodged on 19 March 2018 — Raúl Vítor Soares de Sousa v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) — lodged on 19 March 2018 — Raúl Vítor Soares de Sousa v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-196/18)
   (2018/C 190/14)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raúl Vítor Soares de Sousa

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Question referred

   Does EU law, and Article 110 TFEU in particular, preclude a tax provision such as Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of the URT [(Unitary Road Tax)] Code from imposing a higher tax charge on vehicles of the same make, model, fuel type and age on the ground that they were first registered in other Member States?


title: Case C-309/17: Order of the President of the Court of 26 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Stadtwerke Delmenhorst GmbH v Manfred Bleckwehl

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Stadtwerke Delmenhorst GmbH v Manfred Bleckwehl
   (Case C-309/17) (1)

   (2018/C 190/31)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


201805250491897172018/C 200/342512015TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180426282921Case T-251/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal) v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Documents relating to the ECB’s decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA — Implied refusal to grant access — Express refusal to grant access — Partial refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the confidentiality of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies — Exception relating to the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State — Exception relating to the stability of the financial system in the European Union or in a Member State — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Exception relating to opinions intended for internal use — Obligation to state reasons)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN2810120180426EN0034281292Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal) v ECB
   (Case T-251/15) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Documents relating to the ECB’s decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA — Implied refusal to grant access — Express refusal to grant access — Partial refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the confidentiality of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies — Exception relating to the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State — Exception relating to the stability of the financial system in the European Union or in a Member State — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Exception relating to opinions intended for internal use — Obligation to state reasons)’2018/C 200/34Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal), SGPS, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented: initially by R. Oliveira, N. Cunha Barnabé and S. Estima Martins, lawyers, and subsequently by L. Soares Romão, J. Shearman de Macedo and D. Castanheira Pereira, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented: initially by F. Malfrère and S. Lambrinoc, and subsequently by F. Malfrère and T. Filipova, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and P. Gey, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment, on the one hand, of the ECB’s decision of 1 April 2015 refusing in part to disclose certain documents relating to its decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA and, on the other hand, of the implied decision refusing to grant access to those documents.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 1 April 2015 partially refusing to disclose certain documents relating to the ECB’s decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA, in so far as it refuses to disclose the amount of credit indicated in the extracts of the minutes recording the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 28 July 2014 and the information redacted from the proposals of the Executive Board of the ECB of 28 July and 1 August 2014;

            2.

            Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

            3.

            Orders Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal), SGPS, SA and the ECB to bear their own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


201806080141931202018/C 221/442782018TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504373711Case T-278/18: Action brought on 4 May 2018 — Nemius Group v EUIPO (DENTALDISK)
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN3710120180504EN0044371371Action brought on 4 May 2018 — Nemius Group v EUIPO (DENTALDISK)
   (Case T-278/18)2018/C 221/44Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Nemius Group GmbH (Obertshausen, Germany) (represented by: C. Bildhäuser, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DENTALDISK’ — Application for registration No 15 804 024

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 January 2018 in Case R 741/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision to the extent that EUIPO refused the application for registration in Class 10 and Class 35, in which the application for registration is, in any event, to be published;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


201806080361931242018/C 221/332032018TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180503272711Case T-203/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — VQ v ECB (Application for interim measures — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Tasks conferred on the ECB by Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Powers of the ECB — Specific supervision powers — Administrative penalties — Publication — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN2710120180503EN0033271271Order of the President of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — VQ v ECB
   (Case T-203/18 R)
   ‛(Application for interim measures — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Tasks conferred on the ECB by Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Powers of the ECB — Specific supervision powers — Administrative penalties — Publication — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)’2018/C 221/33Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: VQ (represented by: G. Cahill, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: E. Koupepidou, E. Yoo and M. Puidokas, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a suspension of operation of Decision ECB-SSM-2018-ESSAB-4, SNC 2016-0026 of the Governing Council of the ECB of 14 March 2018 relating to a pecuniary penalty and the publication thereof on the ECB’s website.

      Operative part of the order

            1.

            The application for interim measures is rejected;

            2.

            The costs are reserved.


201806080521931352018/C 221/051732018CJC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201803065511Case C-173/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 6 March 2018 — FS v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN510120180306EN00055151Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 6 March 2018 — FS v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
   (Case C-173/18)2018/C 221/05Language of the case: Hungarian
      Referring court

   Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: FS

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

      Question referred

   Must EU law be interpreted to the effect that the tax authority may not, when carrying out an ex post inspection, exclude the possibility for a taxable person to opt for the VAT exemption for small businesses?


201806080331931372018/C 221/351862018TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180314282921Case T-186/18: Action brought on 14 March 2018 — Abaco Energy and Others v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN2810120180314EN0035281292Action brought on 14 March 2018 — Abaco Energy and Others v Commission
   (Case T-186/18)2018/C 221/35Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicants: Abaco Energy, SA (Madrid, Spain), and 1660 others (represented by: P. Holtrop, P. Kuypers and M. de Wit, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

            —

            annul European Commission decision C(2017) 7384 final of 10 November 2017 in case SA.40348 (2015/NN) concerning the support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste; (
                  1
               )

            —

            order the Commission to issue separate assessments of the previous scheme and the current scheme, in accordance with EU law;

            —

            order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging breach of the Commission’s duty of care.

                     —

                     The Commission is under a duty to competently discharge its duties under the Treaties. The Commission had the opportunity, the information and the resources necessary to assess the previous scheme as part of its assessment in issuing the decision and as required under law. The Commission, in breach of the standards expected of it under the Treaties, failed to discharge this duty by failing to conduct an independent assessment of the previous scheme.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of fact.

                     —

                     The Commission has committed a manifest error of fact in finding that the previous scheme was absorbed by the current scheme. It is manifestly apparent that no absorption took place and that instead at all material times there were two entirely separate schemes, each of which required its own assessment to determine compliance with State aid rules.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of law.

                     —

                     The Commission failed to correctly apply the appropriate binding Commission Guidelines, thereby acting in breach of EU law. Additionally, the Commission held that because in its view there was absorption of the previous scheme by the current scheme, there was no need to assess the previous scheme. The applicants argue that the Commission, by holding this, acted in breach of EU law.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging insufficient reasoning.

                     —

                     The Commission has not provided sufficient reasons such as to enable the applicants to understand the basis on which the Commission issued the decision. It is not clear from the decision (i) the grounds on which the Commission has held that the previous scheme was absorbed by the current scheme, and (ii) the basis on which the absorption of one scheme by another precludes the need for an assessment of the first scheme for compliance with State aid rules. Both were key findings that led to the Commission’s adoption of the decision. Accordingly, the applicants have been deprived of their fundamental right to receive a decision that allows them to understand how and why the Commission has come to the conclusions expressed in the decision.

            5.

            Fifth plea in law, alleging abuse of power and breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

                     —

                     The Commission is under an obligation pursuant to article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to handle the applicants’ interests pursuant to the decision in an impartial and fair manner. The Commission breached this obligation by improperly placing the interests of the Commission and of Spain above those of the applicants.

            6.

            Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality

                     —

                     The Commission disregarded the interests of the applicants by not providing an independent assessment of the previous scheme, thereby breaching the principle of proportionality.

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2017 C 442, p. 1


201806080411931432018/C 221/142752018CJC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180423121321Case C-275/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 April 2018 — Milan Vinš v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN1210120180423EN0014121132Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 April 2018 — Milan Vinš v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
   (Case C-275/18)2018/C 221/14Language of the case: Czech
      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Milan Vinš

      Respondent: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

      Questions referred

            1.

            Is it permissible to render the right to a tax exemption from value added tax on the exportation of goods (Article 146 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (
                  1
               ) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax) (‘the Directive’) conditional on the fact that the goods must first be placed under a particular customs procedure (§ 66 Zákona č. 235/2004 Sb., o dani z přidané hodnoty) (Paragraph 66 of Law No 235/2004 on Value Added Tax)?

            2.

            Is such national legislation sufficiently justifiable under Article 131 of the Directive as a condition for the purposes of preventing tax evasion, avoidance or abuse?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


201806080501931642018/C 221/061832018CJC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201803095622Case C-183/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Południe w Gdańsku (Poland) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB) v Bank BGŻ BNP Paribas S.A. in Gdańsk
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN520120180309EN00065262Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Południe w Gdańsku (Poland) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB) v Bank BGŻ BNP Paribas S.A. in Gdańsk
   (Case C-183/18)2018/C 221/06Language of the case: Polish
      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Południe w Gdańsku

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB)

      Defendant: Bank BGŻ BNP Paribas S.A. in Gdańsk

      Questions referred

            1.

            Should the provisions of Article 1(a), Article 9(3) and Article 20(1) and (2)(b) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (
                  1
               ) be interpreted as meaning that a decision transmitted for execution which imposes a financial penalty on a legal person should be executed in the executing State despite the fact that the national provisions implementing that framework decision do not provide for the possibility of executing a decision which imposes such a penalty on a legal person?

            2.

            In the event of an affirmative answer to the first question, must the term ‘legal person’ as used in Article 1(a) and Article 9(3) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA be interpreted:

                     a.

                     in accordance with the law of the issuing State (Article 1(c));

                     b.

                     in accordance with the law of the executing State (Article 1(d));

                     c.

                     as an autonomous concept of EU law,

               and, as a consequence, does it also cover a branch of a legal person notwithstanding the fact that that branch does not have legal personality in the executing State?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2005 L 76, pp 16-30.


201806080171931292018/C 221/362242018TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180411293131Case T-224/18: Action brought on 11 April 2018 — PV v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN2910120180411EN0036291313Action brought on 11 April 2018 — PV v Commission
   (Case T-224/18)2018/C 221/36Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: PV (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

            —

            Declare this application admissible and well-founded;

      in consequence, order:

            —

            the joinder of the present application to the pending case T-786/16 in accordance with the principle of connexity and with Article 68 of the consolidated Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the EU of 4 March 2015;

            —

            a finding that the psychological harassment is established and a confirmation of the use of ‘false certifications’, which mean that such irregularities cannot be tolerated in the EU legal order;

            —

            the annulment of the CMS 17/025 procedure in all those aspects and of the decision which forms the basis of claim R/8/18;

            —

            the annulment of the decision setting the applicant’s salary at ‘zero’ with effect from 1 October 2017;

            —

            the annulment of the decision requiring the applicant to participate in appraisal exercise FP 2016 (calendar year 2016) and the rejection of claim R/502/17 of 16 March 2018 as a result of psychological harassment and incapacity to work;

            —

            the annulment of the decision requiring the applicant to participate in appraisal exercise FP 2017 (calendar year 2017) as a result of psychological harassment and incapacity to work and annulment of the decision against which claim R/121/18 was brought;

            —

            the annulment of the decision and the rejection of claim R/413/17 of 15 January 2018 by which the applicant was reassigned to the DG SCIC, in breach of the principle of the most basic care;

            —

            the annulment of the decision of the PMO (Ms [X]) of 12 September 2017, which decided on the set off of debit note No ABAC 324170991 of 20 July 2017 for the amount of EUR 42704,74 against the unpaid salary of the applicant for the period from 1 August 2016 to 30 September 2017, and the rejection of claim R/482/17 of 9 March 2018;

      and grant the following compensation on the basis of Article 340 TFEU:

            —

            order compensation in respect of the non-material harm of EUR 98000 flowing from those contested decisions;

            —

            in respect of the material harm, grant:

                     —

                     either an amount of EUR 23190,44 for salary arrears for the period between 1 October 2017 to 30 April 2018 if the General Court considers that the applicant is entitled to his full salary;

                     —

                     or an amount of EUR 7612,87 for salary arrears for the period between 1 October 2017 to 30 April 2018 if the General Court considers that the applicant is entitled only to the difference in salary between his salary at the Commission and that received in the private sector;

            —

            to grant, finally, overall damages of either EUR 121990,44 or EUR 105612,87 together with late-payment interest until the date of payment in full;

      and in any event:

            —

            order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1, 3, 4 and 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and of Articles 1e, point 2, and 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) prohibiting psychological harassment.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 21a, 22b and 23 of the Staff Regulations, the provisions of which prohibit the commission of unlawful acts, in particular in that the applicant was required to participate in the 2016 appraisal exercise when he had not worked due to incapacity for work and dismissal from 1 August 2016.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter and Article 11a of the Staff Regulations concerning direct conflicts of interest.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the duty of care and of assistance caused by the decision to reassign the applicant to DG SCIC.

            5.

            Fifth plea in law, based on the legal principle of failure to fulfil obligations and the principle of legality.

            6.

            Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9, point 3, of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and of the legal principle of ‘ne bis in idem’, vitiating disciplinary procedure CMS 17/025 brought against the applicant.

            7.

            Seventh plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 41(1) of the Charter and, more particularly, of a reasonable time for the abovementioned disciplinary procedure.


201806080431931302018/C 221/071892018CJC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201803136721Case C-189/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 13 March 2018 — Glencore Agriculture Hungary v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN610120180313EN00076172Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 13 March 2018 — Glencore Agriculture Hungary v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
   (Case C-189/18)2018/C 221/07Language of the case: Hungarian
      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

      Questions referred

            1.

            Must the provisions of the VAT Directive (
                  1
               ) and, insofar as they are concerned, the fundamental principle of respect for the rights of the defence and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State and national practice based on that legislation, under which the findings, in the context of an inspection carried out of the parties to a legal relationship (contract, transaction) to which the tax liability relates, made by the tax authorities at the conclusion of a procedure instigated in respect of one of the parties to the legal relationship (the issuer of the invoices in the main proceedings) and entailing a reclassification of that legal relationship, must be taken into account as a matter of course by the tax authorities when carrying out an inspection of another party to the legal relationship (the recipient of the invoices in the main proceedings), it being understood that the other party to the legal relationship has no rights, in particular rights attaching to the status of a party, in the original inspection procedure?

            2.

            If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the negative, do the provisions of the VAT Directive and, insofar as they are concerned, the fundamental principle of respect for the rights of the defence and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, preclude national practice that allow a procedure such as that referred to in the first question whereby the other party to the legal relationship (the recipient of the invoices) does not have, in the original inspection procedure, rights attaching to the status of a party, and cannot therefore exercise any right of appeal with respect to an inspection procedure the findings of which must be taken into account as a matter of course by the tax authorities in the inspection procedure concerning the other party’s tax liability and may be adopted as evidence against that other party, it being understood that the tax authorities do not make available to the other party the relevant files concerning the inspection carried out in respect of the first party to the legal relationship (the issuer of the invoices), in particular documents underpinning the findings, the reports and administrative decisions, but discloses only part of them to that other party in the form of a summary, the tax authorities thus apprising the other party of the contents of the files only indirectly, making a selection according to their own criteria, over which the other party may not exercise any control?

            3.

            Must the provisions of the VAT directive and, insofar as they are concerned, the fundamental principle of respect for the rights of the defence and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as precluding national practice under which the findings, in the context of the inspection of the parties to a legal relationship to which the tax liability relates, made by the tax authorities at the conclusion of a procedure instigated in respect of the issuer of the invoices and including the finding that that issuer actively participated in tax evasion, must be taken into account as a matter of course by the tax authorities when carrying out an inspection in respect of the recipient of the invoices, it being understood that that recipient has no rights attaching to the status of a party in the inspection procedure carried out at the premises of the issuer of the invoices, and cannot therefore exercise any right of appeal in an inspection procedure the findings of which must be taken into account as a matter of course by the tax authorities in the inspection procedure concerning the tax liability of the recipient and may be adopted as evidence against that recipient, and that [the tax authorities] do not make available to the recipient the relevant files relating to the inspection carried out in respect of the issuer, in particular the documents underpinning the findings, the reports and administrative decisions, but disclose only part of them to the recipient in the form of a summary, the tax authorities thus apprising the recipient of the contents of the files only indirectly, making a selection according to their own criteria and over which the recipient may exercise no control?

      (
         1
      )	Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


201806080231931492018/C 221/261932017TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180503222321Joined Cases T-193/17, T-194/17 and T-195/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Shape of a part of a prosthetic hip and others) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a part of a prosthetic hip — Figurative EU trade mark representing a part of a prosthetic hip — EU trade mark consisting in a shade of pink — Withdrawal of applications for declarations of invalidity and closure of the invalidity proceedings — Action of the proprietor of the mark seeking the annulment of decisions closing proceedings — Inadmissibility of action before the Board of Appeal — Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 67 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN2210120180503EN0026221232Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Shape of a part of a prosthetic hip and others)
   (Joined Cases T-193/17, T-194/17 and T-195/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a part of a prosthetic hip — Figurative EU trade mark representing a part of a prosthetic hip — EU trade mark consisting in a shade of pink — Withdrawal of applications for declarations of invalidity and closure of the invalidity proceedings — Action of the proprietor of the mark seeking the annulment of decisions closing proceedings — Inadmissibility of action before the Board of Appeal — Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 67 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 221/26Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: CeramTec GmbH (Plochingen, Germany) (represented by: initially A. Renck and E. Nicolás Gómez, and subsequently A. Renck, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: C5 Medical Werks (Grand Junction, Colorado, United States) (represented by: S. Naumann, lawyer)

      Re:

   Actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 (Cases R 929/2016-4, R 928/2016-4 and R 930/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between C5 Medical Werks and CeramTec.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the actions;

            2.

            Orders CeramTec GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and C5 Medical Werks.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


201806080511931462018/C 221/081952018CJC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201803197821Case C-195/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim (Poland) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Criminal proceedings against B.S.
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN710120180319EN00087182Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim (Poland) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Criminal proceedings against B.S.
   (Case C-195/18)2018/C 221/08Language of the case: Polish
      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim

      Parties to the main proceedings

   B.S.
   Prokuratura Okręgowa w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim
   Łódzki Urząd Celno-Skarbowy w Łodzi
   Urząd Celno-Skarbowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim

      Question referred

   Must Article 2 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, (
         1
      ) in conjunction with Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (
         2
      ) be interpreted as meaning that beer made from malt, within the meaning of CN code 2203, includes a product in the case of which malt extract, glucose syrup, citric acid and water were used to produce hopped wort, and in which the proportion of non-malt ingredients in the wort is predominant in relation to the malt ingredients and glucose syrup was added to pitched wort before the wort fermentation process, and what criteria should be taken into account when determining the proportions of malt and non-malt ingredients in hopped wort in order for the product obtained to be classified as beer under CN code 2203?
   (
         1
      )	OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.
   (
         2
      )	OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.


201806080491931562018/C 221/153042018CJC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504131421Case C-304/18: Action brought on 4 May 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN1310120180504EN0015131142Action brought on 4 May 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-304/18)2018/C 221/15Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková, M. Owsiany-Hornung, F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

            —

            Declare that, by refusing to make available traditional own resources in the amount of EUR 2120309,50 concerning communication on ineligibility IT (07)08-917, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom, (
                  1
               ) Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom, (
                  2
               ) Article 8 of Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom (
                  3
               ) and Article 8 of Council Decision 2014/335/EU, (
                  4
               ) as well as Articles 6, 10, 11 and 17 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/1989, (
                  5
               ) Articles 6, 10, 11 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 (
                  6
               ) and Articles 6, 10, 12 and 13 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 609/2014; (
                  7
               )

            —

            Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The information available to the Commission, which are based on communications and information provided by the Italian Republic in the course of the pre-litigation procedure, show that, in an anti-fraud operation aimed at tackling the trafficking in foreign manufactured tobacco, in 1997 the Italian authorities established the customs debt at issue, included it in separate accounts and then notified the debtor of the amount of the duties owed. Since the debt at issue was included in separate accounts (accounts B) and was not contested, the Italian authorities should have proceeded to its immediate recovery, which they have failed to do. The Italian authorities waited for the outcome of the relevant criminal proceedings brought against the debtors before initiating a recovery procedure, which ended approximatively six years after the debt arose and was established.
   Customs duties constitute EU own resources, which must be collected by the Member States and made available to the Commission. The obligation on Member States to establish the Union’s own resources arises as soon as the conditions provided for by customs legislation are met (establishment of the amount of the duties that stem from the customs debt and identification of the liable person).
   The regulation on making such resources available also provides that the Member States must take all requisite measures to ensure that the amounts corresponding to the duties established are made available to the Commission. Member States are released from the obligation to place at the disposal of the Commission the amounts corresponding to the duties established only if it has not been possible to recover them for reasons of force majeure or if it appears that recovery is impossible in the long term for reasons which cannot be attributed to them. If a Member State fails to make available to the Commission the amount of own resources established, without one of the conditions laid down by the regulation in question being fulfilled, that Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under EU rules. Any delay in making available own resources gives rise moreover to an obligation on the part of that Member State to pay default interest for the whole of the period of the delay.
   Since the Italian authorities waited, in essence, six years before initiating the debt collection procedure in question, and that delay is attributable solely to the Italian authorities, the Italian Republic cannot maintain that it took all the requisite measures to ensure that the amounts corresponding to the duties established were made available to the Commission. The Italian authorities have always refused to make the amount established available to the Commission.
   The Commission considers, therefore, that, in the present case, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of the Decision on the system of own resources and Articles 6, 10, 11 and 17 (now Articles 6, 10, 12 and 13) of the Regulation on making own resources available.
   (
         1
      )	94/728/EC, Euratom: Council Decision of 31 October 1994 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (OJ 1994 L 293, p. 9).
   (
         2
      )	2000/597/EC, Euratom: Council Decision of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 253, p. 42).
   (
         3
      )	2007/436/EC, Euratom: Council Decision of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (OJ 2007 L 163, p. 17).
   (
         4
      )	2014/335/EU, Euratom: Council Decision of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union (OJ 2014 L 1684, p. 105).
   (
         5
      )	Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1).
   (
         6
      )	Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).
   (
         7
      )	Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 of 26 May 2014 on the methods and procedure for making available the traditional, VAT and GNI-based own resources and on the measures to meet cash requirements (recast) (OJ 2014 L 168, p. 39).


201806080121931602018/C 221/272002017TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180503232311Case T-200/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — SB v EUIPO (Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Plea of illegality — Duty to state reasons — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Discrimination on grounds of age)
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN2310120180503EN0027231231Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — SB v EUIPO
   (Case T-200/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Plea of illegality — Duty to state reasons — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Discrimination on grounds of age)’2018/C 221/27Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: SB (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Tóth and A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Executive Director of EUIPO dated 2 June 2016 refusing a second renewal of the applicant’s contract and that director’s decision dated 19 December 2016 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders SB to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.


201806080221931622018/C 221/164312012TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180503151621Case T-431/12: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — Distillerie Bonollo and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of tartaric acid originating in China — Modification of the definitive anti-dumping duty — Partial interim review — Action for annulment — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Determination of the normal value — Constructed normal value — Change in methodology — Individual treatment — Article 2(7)(a) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(7)(a) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) — Temporal adjustment of effects of annulment)
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN1510120180503EN0016151162Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — Distillerie Bonollo and Others v Council
   (Case T-431/12) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Dumping — Imports of tartaric acid originating in China — Modification of the definitive anti-dumping duty — Partial interim review — Action for annulment — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Determination of the normal value — Constructed normal value — Change in methodology — Individual treatment — Article 2(7)(a) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(7)(a) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) — Temporal adjustment of effects of annulment)’2018/C 221/16Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicants: Distillerie Bonollo SpA (Formigine, Italy), Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA (Borgoricco, Italy), Distillerie Mazzari SpA (Sant’Agata sul Santerno, Italy), Caviro Distillerie Srl (Faenza, Italy), and Comercial Química Sarasa, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and initially by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister, subsequently by G. Berrisch, and finally by N. Tuominen, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by M. França and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents), and Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: E. Vermulst, S. Van Cutsem, F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 626/2012 of 26 June 2012 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 349/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2012 L 182, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 626/2012 of 26 June 2012 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 349/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China;

            2.

            Maintains the anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation No 626/2012 as regards Ninghai Organic Chemical Factory’s goods until the European Commission and the Council of the European Union have adopted the measures necessary to comply with this judgment;

            3.

            Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA, Caviro Distillerie Srl and Comercial Química Sarasa, SL;

            4.

            Orders the Commission to bear its own costs;

            5.

            Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


201806080481931342018/C 221/092202018CJC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201803278921Case C-220/18 PPU: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 27 March 2018 — ML
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN810120180327EN00098192Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 27 March 2018 — ML
   (Case C-220/18 PPU)2018/C 221/09Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

      Party to the main proceedings

      Person whose surrender is sought:
      ML

      Questions referred

            1.

            What significance does it have, for the purpose of the interpretation of the above provisions, (
                  1
               ) if legal remedies exist for detainees in the issuing Member State in respect of the conditions of their detention?

                     (a)

                     If, taking account of the aforementioned provisions, the executing judicial authority is in possession of evidence of systemic or general shortcomings affecting certain groups of persons or certain prisons in the issuing Member State, is a genuine risk of inhuman or degrading treatment of the person whose surrender is sought in the event of his surrender, that would render the surrender inadmissible, to be ruled out merely by reason of the fact that such legal remedies have been introduced, without the need for further assessment of the conditions of detention?

                     (b)

                     Is it of significance in this regard that the European Court of Human Rights has held in respect of such legal remedies that there is no evidence that they do not offer detainees realistic perspectives of improving unsuitable conditions of detention?

            2.

            If Question 1 is answered to the effect that the existence of such legal remedies for detainees, without further assessment of the specific conditions of detention in the issuing Member State by the executing judicial authority, does not of itself exclude a genuine risk of inhuman or degrading treatment of the person whose surrender is sought:

                     (a)

                     Are the aforementioned provisions to be interpreted as meaning that the assessment by the executing judicial authority of the conditions of detention in the issuing Member State extends to all prisons or other correctional facilities in which the person whose surrender is sought may be incarcerated? Does this also apply to simply temporary or transitional detention in certain prisons? Or can the assessment be limited to the prison in which, according to information from the authorities of the issuing Member State, the person whose surrender is sought is likely to be incarcerated for most of the time?

                     (b)

                     For this purpose, is it necessary to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the conditions of detention concerned that determines both the personal space available to each prisoner and other conditions of detention? Are the conditions of detention thus determined to be assessed on the basis of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights established in its judgment in Muršić v Croatia (judgment of 30 October 2016, application no 7334/13)?

            3.

            If Question 2 is also answered to the effect that the assessment required by the executing judicial authority must extend to all prisons under consideration:

                     (a)

                     Can the assessment by the executing judicial authority of the conditions of detention in each individual prison envisaged be rendered superfluous by a general assurance given by the issuing Member State that the person whose surrender is sought will not be exposed to any risk of inhuman or degrading treatment?

                     (b)

                     Or, in lieu of an assessment of the conditions of detention of each individual prison envisaged, can the decision by the executing judicial authority on the admissibility of the surrender be made contingent upon the person whose surrender is sought not being exposed to any such treatment?

            4.

            If Question 3 is also answered to the effect that the provision of assurances and the imposition of conditions cannot render the assessment by the executing judicial authority of the conditions of detention in each individual prison envisaged in the issuing Member State superfluous:

                     (a)

                     Must the duty of assessment by the executing judicial authority extend to the conditions of detention in all prisons envisaged, even in the case where the judicial authority of the issuing Member State advises that the period of detention in them of the person whose surrender is sought will not exceed three weeks, circumstances permitting?

                     (b)

                     Does this also apply if the executing judicial authority is unable to ascertain whether that information was provided by the issuing judicial authority or whether it originates from a central authority in the issuing Member State acting in response to a request by the issuing judicial authority for support?

      (
         1
      )	Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision; OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.
   Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial; OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24.


201806080211931482018/C 221/172412016TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504161611Case T-241/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — WE Brand (EW) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark EW — Earlier EU word mark WE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN1610120180504EN0017161161Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — WE Brand (EW)
   (Case T-241/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark EW — Earlier EU word mark WE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 221/17Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: WE Brand Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. van Oerle and L. Bekke, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2016 (Case R 426/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between WE Brand and El Corte Inglés.

      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 11 February 2016 (Case R 426/2015-2);

            2.

            Orders EUIPO and WE Brand Sàrl to bear their own respective costs and to pay those incurred by El Corte Inglés, SA .

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


201806080181931212018/C 221/185742016TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180503161722Case T-574/16: Judgment of the General Court of HK v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Pension for surviving spouse — Conditions for granting — Condition in respect of duration of marriage — Non-marital partnership — First paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations)
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN1620120180503EN0018162172Judgment of the General Court of HK v Commission
   (Case T-574/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Pension for surviving spouse — Conditions for granting — Condition in respect of duration of marriage — Non-marital partnership — First paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations)’2018/C 221/18Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: HK (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, agents)

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

      Re:

   ACTION under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decision refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to the survivor’s pension and, in so far as is necessary, of the Commission decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint and, secondly, seeking compensation for the material and non-material allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders HK to pay the costs;

            3.

            Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 59, 15.2.2016 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-151/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


201806150891955262018/C 231/298182016TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180516242521Case T-818/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid planned by Germany to fund film production and distribution — Decision declaring aid compatible with the internal market — Act not of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN2410120180516EN0029241252Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission
   (Case T-818/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Action for annulment — State aid — Aid planned by Germany to fund film production and distribution — Decision declaring aid compatible with the internal market — Act not of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)’2018/C 231/29Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicants: Netflix International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Netflix, Inc. (Los Gatos, California, United States) (represented by: C. Alberdingk Thijm, S. van Schaik, S. van Velze and E.H. Janssen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda, G. Braun and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2042 of 1 September 2016 on the aid scheme SA.38418 — 2014/C (ex 2014/N) which Germany is planning to implement for the funding of film production and distribution (OJ 2016 L 314, p. 63).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

            2.

            Declares that there is no need to rule on the applications to intervene lodged by the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Filmförderungsanstalt;

            3.

            Orders Netflix International BV and Netflix, Inc. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene;

            4.

            Orders Netflix International, Netflix, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Filmförderungsanstalt each to bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.


201806220481970402018/C 240/377012016TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180517353622Case T-701/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Commission v AV (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Medical examination — Incomplete declarations at the medical examination — Retroactive application of medical cover deferment — Not eligible for the invalidity allowance — Enforcement of a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal setting aside the initial decision)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN3520120180517EN0037352362Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Commission v AV
   (Case T-701/16 P) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Medical examination — Incomplete declarations at the medical examination — Retroactive application of medical cover deferment — Not eligible for the invalidity allowance — Enforcement of a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal setting aside the initial decision)’2018/C 240/37Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Berardis-Kayser, C. Ehrbar and T. Bohr, and subsequently by C. Ehrbar and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: AV (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016, AV v Commission (F-91/15, EU:F:2016:170), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016, AV v Commission (F-91/15);

            2.

            Refers the action to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which ruled on the present appeal;

            3.

            Reserves costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


201806220341970802018/C 240/202112018CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180326171822Case C-211/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 26 March 2018 — IDEALMED III — Serviços de Saúde, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN1720120180326EN0020172182Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 26 March 2018 — IDEALMED III — Serviços de Saúde, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-211/18)2018/C 240/20Language of the case: Portuguese
      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: IDEALMED III — Serviços de Saúde, S.A.

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Questions referred

            1.

            Does Article 132(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (
                  1
               ) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’) preclude a hospital owned by a company governed by private law, which has concluded agreements for the provision of medical care with the State and with legal persons governed by public law, from being deemed to have started to operate under social conditions comparable with those applicable to bodies governed by public law, as referred to in that provision, where the following conditions are met:

                     —

                     more than 54,5 % of revenue, including sums invoiced to the relevant user-beneficiaries, comes from State bodies and public health subsystems, at the prices stipulated in the agreements concluded with them;

                     —

                     more than 69 % of users are beneficiaries of public health subsystems or receive services provided within the framework of agreements concluded with State bodies;

                     —

                     more than 71 % of medical services are carried out under agreements concluded with public health subsystems and with State bodies; and

                     —

                     the activity carried out is of significant general public interest?

            2.

            In view of the fact that, in accordance with Article 377 of the VAT Directive, Portugal chose to continue to exempt from VAT transactions carried out by hospitals not referred to in Article 132(1)(b) of that directive, that it granted such taxable persons the right to opt for taxation of those transactions under Article 391 of the directive, provided that they continue to be taxed for a minimum period of five years, and that it provides that they may become subject to the exemption scheme again only if they make an express declaration to that effect, does Article 391 and/or the principles of the protection of acquired rights and of legitimate expectations, equality and non-discrimination, neutrality and non-distortion of competition in relation to users and taxable persons which are bodies governed by public law, preclude the taxation and customs authority from imposing the exemption scheme before that period has elapsed, since it considers that the taxable person has started to provide services under social conditions comparable with those applicable to bodies governed by public law?

            3.

            Do Article 391 of the VAT Directive and/or the abovementioned principles preclude a new law from requiring the application of the exemption scheme to taxable persons who previously opted for the taxation scheme, before the five-year period has elapsed?

            4.

            Do Article 391 of the VAT Directive and the abovementioned principles preclude legislation in accordance with which a taxable person, who opted for application of the taxation scheme because, at the time when he opted for that scheme, he was not providing healthcare services under social conditions comparable with those applicable to bodies governed by public law, can continue to be subject to that scheme if he starts to provide such services under social conditions comparable with those applicable to bodies governed by public law?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


201806220631970192018/C 240/526662017TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180417464611Case T-666/17: Order of the General Court of 17 April 2018 — NeoCell v EUIPO (BIOACTIVE NEOCELL COLLAGEN) (EU trade mark — Legal person governed by private law — No evidence of legal existence — Article 177(4) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN4610120180417EN0052461461Order of the General Court of 17 April 2018 — NeoCell v EUIPO (BIOACTIVE NEOCELL COLLAGEN)
   (Case T-666/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Legal person governed by private law — No evidence of legal existence — Article 177(4) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)’2018/C 240/52Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: NeoCell Corporation (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2017 (Case R 147/2017-2), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark BIOACTIVE NEOCELL COLLAGEN.

      Operative part of the order

            1.

            The action is dismissed.

            2.

            NeoCell Corporation shall pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.


201806220081970652018/C 240/212122018CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180326191911Case C-212/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Prato Nevoso Termo Energy Srl v Province of Cuneo, ARPA Piemonte
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN1910120180326EN0021191191Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Prato Nevoso Termo Energy Srl v Province of Cuneo, ARPA Piemonte
   (Case C-212/18)2018/C 240/21Language of the case: Italian
      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Prato Nevoso Termo Energy Srl

      Defendants: Province of Cuneo, ARPA Piemonte

      Questions referred

            1.

            Do Article 6 of Directive 2008/98/EC (
                  1
               ) and, in any case, the principle of proportionality, preclude provisions of national law, such as Article 293 of Legislative Decree No 152/2006 and Article 268 paragraph eee-bis) of Legislative Decree No 152/2006, which provide that, even in the ambit of a procedure for authorisation of a biomass-powered plant, a bioliquid that fulfils the technical requirements in that respect and is requested for production purposes as fuel must be considered waste if and so long as it is not included in Annex X part II, section 4, par.1 in Part V of Legislative Decree of 3 April 2006, No 152, irrespective of any adverse environmental impact assessments, or of any dispute as to the technical characteristics of the product, arising in the context of the authorisation procedure?

            2.

            Do Article 13 of Directive 2009/28/EC (
                  2
               ) and, in any case, the principles of proportionality, transparency and simplification preclude a provision of national law such as Article 5 of Legislative Decree No 28/2011 insofar as it does not provide, when the applicant requests authorisation to use biomass as fuel in a plant producing emissions into the atmosphere, for any coordination with the procedure for authorisation of that use as fuel under Legislative Decree No 152/2006, Annex X Part V, or provide for the possibility of specifically assessing the solution proposed in the context of the single authorisation procedure and having regard to pre-defined technical specifications?

      (
         1
      )	Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3).
   (
         2
      )	Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).


201806220431970542018/C 240/387602016TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180517363611Case T-760/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Baskets adapted for cycles) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing baskets adapted for cycles — Ground for invalidity — Inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 52(3) and Article 86(5) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier design — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN3610120180517EN0038361361Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Baskets adapted for cycles)
   (Case T-760/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing baskets adapted for cycles — Ground for invalidity — Inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 52(3) and Article 86(5) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier design — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)’2018/C 240/38Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Basil BV (Silvolde, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Weber and J. von der Thüsen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Artex SpA (San Zeno di Cassola, Italy) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 July 2016 (Case R 535/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Artex and Basil.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            The action is dismissed;

            2.

            Basil BV is ordered to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 6, 9.1.2018.


201806220811970772018/C 240/537262017TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180515464722Case T-726/17: Order of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Commune de Fessenheim and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Letter sent by the Commission to the French authorities regarding the protocol for the compensation of the EDF Group in respect of the repeal of the permit to operate the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant — Implied refusal of access — Time limit for commencing proceedings — Delay — Inadmissibility)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN4620120180515EN0053462472Order of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Commune de Fessenheim and Others v Commission
   (Case T-726/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Action for annulment — Access to documents — Letter sent by the Commission to the French authorities regarding the protocol for the compensation of the EDF Group in respect of the repeal of the permit to operate the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant — Implied refusal of access — Time limit for commencing proceedings — Delay — Inadmissibility)’2018/C 240/53Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicants: Commune de Fessenheim (France), Communauté de communes Pays Rhin-Brisach (Volgelsheim, France), Conseil départemental du Haut-Rhin (Colmar, France), Conseil régional Grand Est Alsace Champagne-Ardenne Lorraine (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: G. de Rubercy, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the implied decision of 10 August 2017, by which the Commission refused to grant the applicants access to the letter sent on 22 March 2017 by the Commission to the French authorities regarding the protocol for the compensation of the Électricité de France (EDF) Group in respect of the repeal of the permit to operate the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant.

      Operative part of the order

            1.

            The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

            2.

            There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the French Republic’s application for leave to intervene.

            3.

            The Commune de Fessenheim, the Communauté de communes Pays Rhin-Brisach, the Conseil départemental du Haut-Rhin and the Conseil régional Grand Est Alsace Champagne-Ardenne Lorraine shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

            4.

            The French Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.


201806220191970702018/C 240/091022017CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201804257711Case C-102/17: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Contas — Portugal) — Secretaria Regional de Saúde dos Açores v Ministério Público (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 267 TFEU — Concept of a ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ — Proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature — National court of auditors — Prior review of the legality and budgetary justification of public expenditure — Manifest inadmissibility)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN710120180425EN00097171Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Contas — Portugal) — Secretaria Regional de Saúde dos Açores v Ministério Público
   (Case C-102/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 267 TFEU — Concept of a ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ — Proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature — National court of auditors — Prior review of the legality and budgetary justification of public expenditure — Manifest inadmissibility)’2018/C 240/09Language of the case: Portuguese
      Referring court

   Tribunal de Contas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secretaria Regional de Saúde dos Açores

      Interested party: Ministério Público

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Tribunal de Contas (Court of Auditors, Portugal), by decision of 17 January 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


201806220721970462018/C 240/398012016TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180529373711Case T-801/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Fedtke v EESC (Civil service — Officials — Retirement — Retirement age — Request to extend the period of employment — First and second paragraphs of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations — Interest of the service — Purely confirmatory measure — New and substantial facts — Admissibility)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN3710120180529EN0039371371Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Fedtke v EESC
   (Case T-801/16 RENV) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Civil service — Officials — Retirement — Retirement age — Request to extend the period of employment — First and second paragraphs of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations — Interest of the service — Purely confirmatory measure — New and substantial facts — Admissibility)’2018/C 240/39Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Ingrid Fedtke (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, A. Carvajal and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the EESC decision rejecting the applicant’s application to have her period of employment extended until the age of 66.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Ms Ingrid Fedtke to pay the costs incurred in the present proceedings before both the General Court of the European Union and the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 320, 28.9.2015 (case initially brought before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under case number F-107/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


201806220141970532018/C 240/222132018CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180326192022Case C-213/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Adriano Guaitoli and Others v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN1920120180326EN0022192202Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Adriano Guaitoli and Others v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd
   (Case C-213/18)2018/C 240/22Language of the case: Italian
      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Adriano Guaitoli, Concepción Casan Rodriguez, Alessandro Celano Tomassoni, Antonia Cirilli, Lucia Cortini, Mario Giuli, Patrizia Padroni

      Defendant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

      Questions referred

            1.

            If a party whose flight has been delayed or cancelled jointly requests, not only the standardised and lump-sum compensation provided for by Articles 5, 7 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, (
                  1
               ) but also the further compensation referred to in Article 12 of the Regulation, must Article 33 of the Montreal Convention apply, or is ‘jurisdiction’ (both international and local) governed by Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001? (
                  2
               )

            2.

            In the first hypothesis in question 1, must Article 33 of the Montreal Convention be interpreted to the effect that it governs only the allocation of jurisdiction among the States Parties, or as meaning that it also governs local jurisdiction within the individual State?

            3.

            In the first hypothesis in question 2, is the application of Article 33 of the Montreal Convention ‘exclusive’, precluding application of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, or may the two provisions be applied jointly, so as to determine directly both the jurisdiction of the State and the local jurisdiction of its courts?

      (
         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 — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
   (
         2
      )	Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


201806220541970412018/C 240/40672017TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180518373822Case T-67/17: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2018 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (tèespresso) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark tèespresso — Earlier international figurative mark TPresso and earlier international word mark TPRESSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN3720120180518EN0040372382Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2018 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (tèespresso)
   (Case T-67/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark tèespresso — Earlier international figurative mark TPresso and earlier international word mark TPRESSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 240/40Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Italytrade Srl (Bari, Italy) (represented by: N. Clemente, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Tpresso SA (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Biglia and R. Spagnolli, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2016 (Case R 959/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tpresso and Italytrade.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Italytrade Srl to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


201806220761970252018/C 240/54TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180515474711Case T-812/17: Order of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Seco Belgium and Vinçotte v Parliament (Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Assignments to perform inspections and provide technical opinions in the context of construction works, projects and purchases at the European Parliament in Brussels — Rejection of the applicants’ tender and award of the contract to another tenderer — Withdrawal of the contested act — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN4710120180515EN0054471471Order of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Seco Belgium and Vinçotte v Parliament
   (Case T-812/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Assignments to perform inspections and provide technical opinions in the context of construction works, projects and purchases at the European Parliament in Brussels — Rejection of the applicants’ tender and award of the contract to another tenderer — Withdrawal of the contested act — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)’2018/C 240/54Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Seco Belgium (Brussels, Belgium) and Vinçotte (Vilvoorde, Belgium) (represented by: A. Delvaux and R. Simar, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by P. López-Carceller and Z. Nagy, and subsequently by Z. Nagy and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 1 December 2017 to reject the applicants’ tender in the tender procedure 06D 20/2017/M005 entitled ‘Assignments to perform inspections and provide technical opinions in the context of construction works, projects and purchases at the European Parliament in Brussels’ and to award the contract to another tenderer.

      Operative part of the order

            1.

            There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

            2.

            The European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


201806220531970592018/C 240/41682017TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180518383811Case T-68/17: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2018 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (teaespresso) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark teaespresso — Earlier international figurative mark TPresso and earlier international word mark TPRESSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN3810120180518EN0041381381Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2018 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (teaespresso)
   (Case T-68/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark teaespresso — Earlier international figurative mark TPresso and earlier international word mark TPRESSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 240/41Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Italytrade Srl (Bari, Italy) (represented by: N. Clemente, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Tpresso SA (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by L. Biglia and R. Spagnolli, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2016 (Case R 1099/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tpresso and Italytrade.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Italytrade Srl to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.