title: Case C-480/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 24 June 2019 —Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

text:
               2.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/6

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 24 June 2019 — Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö
      (Case C-480/19)
      (2019/C 295/10)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein hallinto-oikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: E

         Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

         Question referred

      Are Articles 63 and 65 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national interpretation according to which income received by a natural person residing in Finland from an undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities based in another Member State of the Union and constituted in accordance with statute within the meaning of the Investment Fund Directive 2009/65/EC (1) (UCITS fund in the form of an investment company) is not, for the purposes of income tax, treated in the same way as income received from a Finnish investment fund constituted in accordance with contract law within the meaning of the same Directive (UCITS fund in contract form), because the legal form of the UCITS located in the other Member State does not correspond to the legal structure of the national investment fund?

         (1)  Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (OJ 2009 L 302, p. 32).


title: Case C-484/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 25 June 2019 — Lexel

text:
               2.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/7

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 25 June 2019 — Lexel
      (Case C-484/19)
      (2019/C 295/11)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Lexel AB

         Defendant: Skatteverket

         Questions referred

      Is it compatible with Article 49 TFEU to refuse a Swedish company a deduction for interest paid to a company which is in the same group of associated enterprises and is resident in a different Member State on the ground that the principal reason for the debt having arisen is deemed to be that the group of associated enterprises is to receive a substantial tax benefit, when such a tax benefit would not have been deemed to exist if both companies had been Swedish, since they would then have been covered by the provisions on intra-group transfers?


title: Case C-486/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 June 2019 — Syyttäjä and Tulli

text:
               2.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/8

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 June 2019 — Syyttäjä and Tulli
      (Case C-486/19)
      (2019/C 295/12)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein oikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: A, B

         Respondents: Syyttäjä and Tulli

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is EU law to be interpreted as precluding a natural person acting on behalf of a company subject to tax who has failed to fulfil the obligations linked to the excise duty levied on ice-cream products from being sentenced to a criminal penalty for those failures if a tax exemption for activities of other undertakings relating to similar products were to be regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU?

                  2.

                  If the first question is answered in the affirmative, did a national tax system for excise duties on ice-cream products such as that in force in the period during which the offence was committed meet the criterion of selectivity as a characteristic of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU?


title: Case C-500/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 July 2019 — Puls 4 TV GmbH & Co. KG v YouTube LLC and Google Austria GmbH

text:
               2.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/8

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 July 2019 — Puls 4 TV GmbH & Co. KG v YouTube LLC and Google Austria GmbH
      (Case C-500/19)
      (2019/C 295/13)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant on a point of law: Puls 4 TV GmbH & Co. KG

         Respondents in the appeal on a point of law: YouTube LLC, Google Austria GmbH

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the operator of an online video platform, as a host service provider, plays an active role, leading to a loss of the liability privilege, as a result of providing or offering to the user the following accompanying activities in addition to the provision of storage space for third-party content:

                              —

                              suggesting videos according to subject areas;

                              —

                              facilitating visitors to search by title or content information by means of an electronic directory of content, with the user being able to specify the title or content information;

                              —

                              providing online tips in relation to the use of the service (‘Help’);

                              —

                              with the user’s consent, linking the videos uploaded by the user with advertisements (but not any self-promotion by the platform operator) according to the selection of the target group by the user?

                  2.

                  Is a national legal position whereby the cease-and-desist obligation of a host service provider (intermediary service provider) in an active role as accessory in respect of infringements by its users exists only on the condition that the accessory has knowingly encouraged the user’s infringement consistent with the first sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC, (2) or is this provision to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States must not make claims for a prohibitory injunction made by rightholders against accessories dependent on knowing encouragement of the user’s infringement?

                  3.

                  Are the provisions in Articles 12 to 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC on the liability of intermediary service providers to be considered to be horizontal limitations of liability that benefit any intermediary service provider in a neutral role, even where its activity is to be qualified under copyright law as communication to the public that it has committed itself?

                  4.

                  Are Article 14(3) (and also Article 12(3) and Article 13(2)) of Directive 2000/31/EC, Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC (3) and the third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the liability privilege in accordance with Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC is available to a host service provider (intermediary service provider) in a neutral role even in the event of a claim for a prohibitory injunction being brought against it and that therefore even an injunction order by the courts with respect to such an intermediary service provider is admissible only if that intermediary service provider has actual knowledge of the illegal activity or information, or is such an injunction order by the courts admissible only if the host service provider does not expeditiously remove or disable the content objected to as infringing after a specific warning and confirms the infringement in judicial proceedings?

         (1)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

         (2)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

         (3)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).


title: Case C-514/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 8 July 2019 — Union des industries de la protection des plantes v Premier ministre, Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail

text:
               2.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/10

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 8 July 2019 — Union des industries de la protection des plantes v Premier ministre, Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail
      (Case C-514/19)
      (2019/C 295/14)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Union des industries de la protection des plantes

         Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail

         Interveners: Association Générations futures, Union nationale de l’apiculture française (UNAF), Syndicat national de l’apiculture

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Where a national measure designed to restrict the use of active substances has been formally notified to the Commission on the basis of Article 5 of Directive 2015/1535/EU of 9 September 2015, (1) together, however, with a presentation of the information which leads the Member State to take the view that the substance is likely to constitute a serious risk to human or animal health or to the environment and that that risk can be adequately controlled, as the legislation currently stands, only by measures taken by the Member State, a presentation sufficiently clear for the Commission not to make the mistake of thinking that that notification has been made on the basis of Regulation No 1107/2009 of 21 October 2009, (2) can the European Commission regard that notification as having been submitted under the procedure laid down in Articles 69 and 71 of that regulation and adopt, as appropriate, additional measures of enquiry satisfying both the requirements of that legislation and the concerns expressed by that Member State?

                  2.

                  If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must Implementing Regulations 2018/783, (3) 2018/784 (4) and 2018/785 (5) of 29 May 2018 prohibiting the use of the substances thiamethoxam, clothianidin and imidacloprid, from 19 December 2018, with the exception of treatments for crops staying within permanent greenhouses during their entire life-cycle, be regarded as measures taken in response to the application made by France on 2 February 2017 for the general prohibition of the use of plant protection products containing one or more substances belonging to the neonicotinoid family and of seeds treated with those products?

                  3.

                  If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, what can a Member State do if it has asked the Commission, pursuant to Article 69 of Regulation No 1107/2009, to take measures to restrict or prohibit the use of plant protection products containing one or more substances of the neonicotinoid family and of seeds treated with those products, and the Commission complies only in part with its request by not restricting the use of all the substances belonging to the neonicotinoid family but by restricting the use of three of them?

         (1)  Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ 2015 L 241, p. 1).

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

         (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/783 of 29 May 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance imidacloprid (OJ 2018 L 132, p. 31).

         (4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/784 of 29 May 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance clothianidin (OJ 2018 L 132, p. 35).

         (5)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/785 of 29 May 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance thiamethoxam (OJ 2018 L 132, p. 40).


title: Case C-91/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Article 110 TFEU — Directive 92/83/EEC — Directive 92/84/EEC — Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 — Application of a lower rate of duty to the manufacture of national products ‘tsipouro’ and ‘tsikoudia’)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/14

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
      (Case C-91/18) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Article 110 TFEU - Directive 92/83/EEC - Directive 92/84/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 - Application of a lower rate of duty to the manufacture of national products ‘tsipouro’ and ‘tsikoudia’)
      (2019/C 305/17)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Kyratsou and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Tassopoulou and D. Tsagkaraki, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that

                              —

                              by adopting and maintaining in force legislation which applies a rate of excise duty 50 % below the standard national rate to tsipouro and tsikoudia manufactured by ‘systematic distilleries’, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 19 and 21 in conjunction with Article 23(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, and

                              —

                              by adopting and maintaining in force legislation which applies, on conditions laid down by that legislation, a much reduced rate of excise duty to tsipouro and tsikoudia manufactured by small ‘occasional’ distillers, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 19 and 21 in conjunction with Article 22(1) of Directive 92/83 and with Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages;

                  2.

                  Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Case T-502/19: Action brought on 12 July 2019 — Corneli v ECB

text:
               16.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/39

      Action brought on 12 July 2019 — Corneli v ECB
      (Case T-502/19)
      (2019/C 312/32)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Francesca Corneli (Velletri, Italy) (represented by: M. Condinanzi, L. Boggio and F. Ferraro, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the contested decision to be unlawful and thus null and void;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs; and

                  —

                  order, as a measure of organisation of procedure, that the contested decision and the subsequent renewal decision, in their respective full versions, be submitted to the Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      This action has been brought against Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 1 January 2019, adopted on the basis of a draft decision of the Supervisory Board pursuant to Article 26(8) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, (1) pursuant to Articles 69octiesdecies, 70 and 98 of decreto legislativo n. 385 del 1o settembre 1993 (Legislative Decree No 385 of 1 September 1993; ‘the TUB’), transposing Article 29 of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 1024/2013, to dissolve the administrative and supervisory bodies of Banca Carige S.p.A., having its registered office in Genoa, and to replace them with three special administrators and with a supervisory committee formed of three members, respectively.
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of proportionality and infringement of Articles 28 and 29 of Directive 2014/59/EU (2) and Article 69octiesdecies et seq. of the TUB.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in this respect that early intervention measures need to be introduced gradually, which was not the case here. The most intrusive measure is, therefore, unlawful and void.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging failure to give adequate reasoning as regards the requirements of proportionality and of taking a gradual approach imposed by the overall early intervention system.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the last sentence of Article 29(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU and failure to observe the principle of sound public administration.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in this respect that the appointment of members of the former board of directors as temporary administrators amounts to a failure to comply with the obligation to avoid conflicts of interest.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 70 of the TUB, misuse of powers and a failure to provide sufficient reasoning.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in this respect that imposing the special administration on the grounds of serious infringements or irregularities renders the measure contradictory and inconsistent.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules relating to the rights of shareholders contained in Directive (EU) 1132/2017 (3) and the Italian Civil Code, as well as those which may be enforced through the fundamental principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Italian Constitution on the protection of property, savings, private economic initiative and the right to self-determination of citizens in personal choices.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

         (2)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

         (3)  Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 relating to certain aspects of company law (OJ 2017 L 169, p. 46).


title: Case T-513/19: Action brought on 17 July 2019 — Lux v Commission

text:
               16.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/42

      Action brought on 17 July 2019 — Lux v Commission
      (Case T-513/19)
      (2019/C 312/34)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Catherine Lux (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the PMO.4 of 21 September 2018 to consider the transfer of the applicant’s contract from EFSA to EASA as a new employment contract and not to apply to her the transitional measures laid down in Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the Commission misinterpreted the concept of entry into service.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 10 and 12 of the general implementing provisions, on the ground that those provisions were adopted in order to promote inter-agency mobility, thereby confirming the possibility of a European career within the agencies.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity. The applicant submits in that respect that her decision to continue her role within EASA in 2017 was based on the confirmation by the EASA Human Resources Department that this continuation would also ensure the continuation of the conditions relating to her pension rights acquired within EFSA.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of continuity of career and employment of temporary staff. The applicant submits that the Commission cannot exclude the application of Articles 10 and 12 of the general implementing provisions in so far as the Commission itself established a principle of continuous joint analysis of the employment of a temporary agent within agencies.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The applicant submits in this respect that there are no grounds to justify the difference in treatment between an official and another servant in terms of pension rights within the European Union.


title: Case C-494/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 26 June 2019 — QM

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 26 June 2019 — QM
      (Case C-494/19)
      (2019/C 328/21)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: QM

         Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

         Interested party: Finanzpolizei

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) and Directive 2014/67/EU (2) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as a failure to make available documents relating to pay or a failure to report to the Central Coordination Office (ZKO notifications), provides for very high fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?

                  2.

                  If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

                              Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71 and Directive 2014/67 be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits?

                  3.

                  Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that requires a declaration of amendment to be provided to the Central Coordination Office in the event that the temporary activity in the host country is concluded prematurely and/or interrupted?

                  4.

                  Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not grant a reasonable period of time for the submission of a declaration of amendment?

                  5.

                  Are Article 56 TFEU and Article 9 of Directive 2014/67 to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides that, for the purposes of the requirement to make available certain documents, it is not sufficient subsequently to submit appropriate and relevant documents within a reasonable period of time?

                  6.

                  Are Article 56 TFEU and Article 9 of Directive 2014/67 to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides that foreign service providers are to submit documents that go beyond those specified in Article 9 of Directive 2014/67, are neither relevant nor appropriate and are not clearly defined under national law (such as, for example, pay statements, payslips, pay lists, tax statements, registrations and deregistrations, health insurance, schedules of notification and allocation of surcharges, documents relating to pay grades, certificates)?

         (1)  OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.

         (2)  Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11).


title: Case C-433/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 2 July 2018 — ML v OÜ Aktiva Finants

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/18

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 2 July 2018 — ML v OÜ Aktiva Finants
      (Case C-433/18)
      (2018/C 352/23)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein oikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: ML

         Defendant: OÜ Aktiva Finants

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the procedure for granting leave for further consideration which is part of the national system of appeals compatible with the effective rights of appeal that are guaranteed for both parties in Article 43(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) where an appeal is lodged against the decision of a district court which relates to the recognition or enforcement of a judgment under Regulation No 44/2001?

                  2.

                  In the procedure for granting leave for further consideration, are the requirements in relation to a procedure in contradictory matters within the meaning of Article 43(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 satisfied if the respondent is not heard in relation to the appeal before the decision on leave is taken? Are they satisfied if the respondent is heard before the decision on leave for further consideration is taken?

                  3.

                  Does the fact that the appellant may be not only the party who has applied for enforcement and whose application has been refused, but also the party against whom enforcement has been applied for when that application has been allowed, have any significance for the above interpretation?

         (1)  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).


title: Case T-786/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Bourdouvali and Others v Council and Others (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Decision of the Governing Council of the ECB relating to emergency liquidity assistance following a request from the Central Bank of Cyprus — Euro Group Statements of 25 March, 12 April, 13 May and 13 September 2013 concerning Cyprus — Decision 2013/236/EU — Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Admissibility — Formal requirements — Exhaustion of national rights of action — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Right to property — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Bourdouvali and Others v Council and Others
      (Case T-786/14) (1)

      ((Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Decision of the Governing Council of the ECB relating to emergency liquidity assistance following a request from the Central Bank of Cyprus - Euro Group Statements of 25 March, 12 April, 13 May and 13 September 2013 concerning Cyprus - Decision 2013/236/EU - Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Admissibility - Formal requirements - Exhaustion of national rights of action - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Right to property - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment))
      (2018/C 352/34)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali (Meneou, Cyprus) and 51 other applicants whose names are included in the annex (represented by: P. Tridimas, barrister).

         Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Moro and E. Chatziioakeimidou, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, M. Konstantinidis and L. Flynn, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K. Laurinavičius and M. Szablewska, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, avocat), Eurogroupe, represented by: the Council of the European Union (represented by M. A. de Gregorio Merino, Mmes E. Moro and E. Chatziioakeimidou, acting as Agents), European Union, represented by the European Commission (represented by J.-P. Keppenne, M. Konstantinidis and L. Flynn, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 21 March 2013 relating to emergency liquidity assistance following a request from the Central Bank of Cyprus, the Euro Group Statements of 25 March, 12 April, 13 May and 13 September 2013 concerning Cyprus, Council Decision 2013/236/EU of 25 April 2013 addressed to Cyprus on specific measures to restore financial stability and sustainable growth (OJ 2013 L 141, p. 32), the Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), and other acts and conduct of the Commission, Council, the ECB and the Euro Group connected with the grant of a financial assistance facility to the Republic of Cyprus.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mrs Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union, by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

         (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Joined Cases C-96/16 and C-94/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 38 de Barcelona, Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Banco Santander SA v Mahamadou Demba, Mercedes Godoy Bonet (C-96/16), Rafael Ramón Escobedo Cortés v Banco de Sabadell SA (C-94/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Scope — Assignment of debts — Loan agreement concluded with a consumer — Criteria for assessing the unfairness of a contractual term setting the default interest rate — Consequences of that unfairness)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/2

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 38 de Barcelona, Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Banco Santander SA v Mahamadou Demba, Mercedes Godoy Bonet (C-96/16), Rafael Ramón Escobedo Cortés v Banco de Sabadell SA (C-94/17)
      (Joined Cases C-96/16 and C-94/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Scope - Assignment of debts - Loan agreement concluded with a consumer - Criteria for assessing the unfairness of a contractual term setting the default interest rate - Consequences of that unfairness))
      (2018/C 352/02)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 38 de Barcelona, Tribunal Supremo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Banco Santander SA (C-96/16), Rafael Ramón Escobedo Cortés (C-94/17)

         Defendants: Mahamadou Demba, Mercedes Godoy Bonet (C-96/16), Banco de Sabadell SA (C-94/17)

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted, first, as not applying to a business practice consisting in assigning or purchasing a consumer’s debt, without any provision for such an assignment having been made in the loan agreement concluded with the consumer, without giving the consumer prior notice of that assignment, without his consent and without giving him the opportunity to buy back and thereby extinguish his debt by reimbursing to the assignee the price it paid in respect of that assignment, plus the applicable interest, expenses and costs. Secondly, that directive does not apply to national provisions, such as those contained in Article 1535 of the Código Civil (Civil Code) and Articles 17 and 540 of Ley 1/2000 de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Civil Procedure Code) of 7 January 2000, which regulate that opportunity to buy back a debt and govern the replacement of the assignor by the assignee in ongoing proceedings.

                  2.

                  Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding national case-law, such as that of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain) at issue in the main proceedings, whereby, in a loan agreement concluded with a consumer, a non-negotiated term fixing the default interest rate applicable is unfair, on the ground that the consumer who is late performing his payment obligation is required to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation, where that rate exceeds by more than two percentage points the ordinary interest rate provided for in that agreement.

                  3.

                  Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding national case-law, such as that of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) at issue in the main proceedings, whereby the consequence of the unfairness of a non-negotiated term fixing the default interest rate in a loan agreement concluded with a consumer consists in the complete elimination of that interest, while the ordinary interest provided for in that agreement continues to run.

         (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.

         OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


title: Case T-733/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Banque postale v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — Refusal of the ECB to grant authorisation to the applicant to exclude exposures meeting certain conditions from the calculation of the leverage ratio — Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Discretion of the ECB — Errors of law — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/30

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Banque postale v ECB
      (Case T-733/16) (1)

      ((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - Refusal of the ECB to grant authorisation to the applicant to exclude exposures meeting certain conditions from the calculation of the leverage ratio - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))
      (2018/C 352/35)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: La Banque postale (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Guillaume and L. Coudray, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax and G. Bassani, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of European Central Bank Decision ECB/SSM/2016-96950066U5XAAIRCPA78/16 of 24 August 2016, taken pursuant to Article 4(1)(d) and Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls European Central Bank (ECB) Decision ECB/SSM/2016-96950066U5XAAIRCPA78/16 of 24 August 2016;

                  2.

                  Orders the ECB to pay the costs;

                  3.

                  Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.


title: Case C-435/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 June 2018 — Otis Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 June 2018 — Otis Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others
      (Case C-435/18)
      (2018/C 352/24)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Otis Gesellschaft m.b.H., Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Kone Aktiengesellschaft, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge Gesellschaft m.b.H.

         Respondents: Land Oberösterreich, Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgenossenschaft ‘Lebensräume’ eingetragene Gen.m.b.H., EBS Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH, WAG Wohnungsanlagen Gesellschaft m.b.H., WSG Gemeinnützige Wohn- und Siedlergemeinschaft reg. Gen.m.b.H., Neue Heimat Oberösterreich Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und SiedlungsgesmbH, BRW Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft ‘Baureform Wohnstätte’ eingetragene Gen.m.b.H., Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft ‘Familie’ eingetragene Gen.m.b.H., VLW Vereinigte Linzer Wohnungsgenossenschaften Gemeinnützige GmbH, Gemeinnützige Steyrer Wohn- und Siedlungs Genossenschaft ‘Styria’ reg.Gen.m.b.H., Innviertler Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft reg.Gen.m.b.H., Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgesellschaft der Stadt Steyr GmbH, Gemeinnützige Industrie-Wohnungsaktiengesellschaft, Gemeinnützige Siedlungsgesellschaft m.b.H. für den Bezirk Vöcklabruck, GEWOG Neues Heim Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgesellschaft m.b.H.

         Question referred

      Are Article 85 TEC, Article 81 EC and Article 101 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to maintain the full effectiveness of those provisions and the practical effectiveness of the prohibition resulting from those provisions, it is necessary that compensation for losses may also be claimed from members of a cartel by persons who are not active as suppliers or customers on the relevant product and geographic market affected by a cartel, but who grant loans to buyers of the products offered on the market affected by the cartel under preferential terms as funding bodies within the scope of statutory provisions, and whose loss lies in the fact that the loan amount granted as a percentage of the product costs was higher than what it would have been without the cartel agreement, which means that they were unable profitably to invest those amounts?


title: Case C-123/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Nefiye Yön v Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association — Decision No 2/76 — Article 7 — Standstill clause — Right of residence of family members of a Turkish worker — Visa requirement for admission to the territory of a Member State)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/9

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Nefiye Yön v Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart
      (Case C-123/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association - Decision No 2/76 - Article 7 - Standstill clause - Right of residence of family members of a Turkish worker - Visa requirement for admission to the territory of a Member State))
      (2018/C 352/12)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Nefiye Yön

         Defendant: Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart

         Interveners: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 of 20 December 1976 adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, taken during the period from 20 December 1976 to 30 November 1980, which makes the grant, for the purposes of family reunification, of a residence permit to third-country nationals who are family members of a Turkish worker residing lawfully in the Member State concerned, subject to such nationals obtaining, before entering national territory, a visa for the purpose of that reunification, constitutes a ‘new restriction’ within the meaning of that provision. Such a measure may nevertheless be justified on the grounds of the effective control of immigration and the management of migratory flows, but may be accepted only provided that the detailed rules relating to its implementation do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued, which it is for the national court to verify.

         (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


title: Case C-454/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 12 July 2018 — Baltic Cable AB v Energimarknadsinspektionen

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 12 July 2018 — Baltic Cable AB v Energimarknadsinspektionen
      (Case C-454/18)
      (2018/C 352/25)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Baltic Cable AB

         Defendant: Energimarknadsinspektionen

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 16(6) of the Electricity Regulation (1) to apply in all cases where a person obtains revenues resulting from the allocation of interconnection, regardless of his circumstances, or is it to apply only where the person who receives the revenues is a transmission system operator, as defined in Article 2(4) of the Electricity Market Directive?

                  2.

                  If the answer to Question 1 is that Article 16(6) of the Electricity Regulation is to apply only to transmission system operators, is an undertaking which merely operates an interconnector a transmission system operator?

                  3.

                  If the answer to Question 1 or 2 means that Article 16(6) of the Electricity Regulation is to apply to an undertaking which merely operates an interconnector, can the costs relating to the operation and maintenance of an interconnector in any event be regarded as network investments to maintain or increase transmission capacities, as referred to in point (b) of first subparagraph of Article 16(6)?

                  4.

                  If the answer to Question 1 or 2 means that Article 16(6) of the Electricity Regulation is to apply to an undertaking which merely operates an interconnector, can the regulatory authority, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 16(6) of the Electricity Regulation, approve that an undertaking which merely operates an interconnector, which has a methodology for fixing tariffs but does not have customers making direct payments with network charges (tariffs) which can be reduced, may use revenues from the allocation of interconnection to make [Or.22] a return or, if the answer to Question 3 is in the negative, to operate and maintain?

                  5.

                  If the answer to Question 1 or 2 means that Article 16(6) of the Electricity Regulation is to apply to an undertaking which merely operates an interconnector, and the answer to Question 3 and 4 means either that the company may not use revenues resulting from the allocation of interconnection to operate or maintain or to make a return, or that the undertaking may use the revenues to operate or maintain, but not to make a return, is application of Article 16(6) of the Electricity Regulation to an undertaking which merely operates an interconnector contrary to the EU-law principle of proportionality or any other applicable principle?

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ 2009, L 211 p. 15).


title: Case C-472/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Jorge Luis Colino Sigüenza v Ayuntamiento de Valladolid and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Scope — Article 1(1) — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Service contract for the management of a municipal Academy of Music — Cessation of the activity of the first contractor before the end of the current school year and designation of a new contractor at the beginning of the following school year — Article 4(1) — Prohibition of dismissal by reason of transfer — Exception — Dismissal for economic, technical or organisational reasons entailing changes in the workforce — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/3

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Jorge Luis Colino Sigüenza v Ayuntamiento de Valladolid and Others
      (Case C-472/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Scope - Article 1(1) - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Service contract for the management of a municipal Academy of Music - Cessation of the activity of the first contractor before the end of the current school year and designation of a new contractor at the beginning of the following school year - Article 4(1) - Prohibition of dismissal by reason of transfer - Exception - Dismissal for economic, technical or organisational reasons entailing changes in the workforce - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47))
      (2018/C 352/03)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Jorge Luis Colino Sigüenza

         Defendants: Ayuntamiento de Valladolid, In-pulso Musical SC, Miguel del Real Llorente, Administrador Concursal Músicos y Escuela SL, Músicos y Escuela SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the successful tenderer for a service contract for the management of a municipal school of music, to which the municipal administration had supplied all the means necessary for the exercise of that activity, ceases that activity two months before the end of the current academic year, proceeding to dismiss the staff and returning those material resources to that municipal administration, which conducts a new tendering procedure solely for the following academic year and provides the new contractor with the same material resources, is capable of coming within the scope of that directive;

                  2.

                  Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/23 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where the successful tenderer for a service contract for the management of a municipal school of music ceases that activity two months before the end of the current academic year, proceeding to dismiss the staff, the new contractor taking over the activity at the beginning of the next academic year, it appears that the dismissal of the employees was made for ‘economic, technical or organisational reasons entailing changes in the workforce’, within the meaning of that provision, provided that the circumstances which gave rise to the dismissal of all the employees and the delayed appointment of a new service provider are not a deliberate measure intended to deprive those employees of the rights conferred on them by Directive 2001/23, which it will be for the referring court to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case C-467/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen Sad Lukovit (Bulgaria) lodged on 17 July 2018 — criminal proceedings against EP

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen Sad Lukovit (Bulgaria) lodged on 17 July 2018 — criminal proceedings against EP
      (Case C-467/18)
      (2018/C 352/26)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Rayonen Sad Lukovit

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Proceedings instituted at the request of: Rayonna prokuratura Lom

         Other party to the proceedings: EP

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do the present proceedings for an order for the adoption of compulsory medical measures constituting a form of State compulsion in relation to persons who, according to the findings of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, have committed an act representing a danger to the general public, fall within the scope of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) on the right to information in criminal proceedings and Directive 2013/48/EU (2) on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings?

                  2.

                  Do the Bulgarian procedural provisions governing the special procedure for an order for the adoption of compulsory medical measures provided for in Article 427 et seq. of the NPK (Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks, Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure), under which the court is not empowered to refer the proceedings back to the Public Prosecutor’s Office with the instruction to rectify the procedural errors committed in the course of the pre-trial procedure, but can either grant the application for an order for the adoption of compulsory medical measures or reject it, constitute an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 12 of Directive 2013/48/EU and Article 8 of Directive 2012/13/EU in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which confers on persons the right to challenge before a court any infringements of their rights which may have been committed in the course of the pre-trial procedure?

                  3.

                  Are Directive 2012/13/EU and Directive 2013/48/EU applicable to (pre-trial) criminal proceedings in the case where the national law, that is to say the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks, does not recognise the legal concept of ‘suspect’ and the Public Prosecutor’s Office does not formally regard the person in question as a defendant during the pre-trial procedure, since, on the assumption that the intentional, unlawful homicide forming the subject of the investigations was committed by that person in the absence of criminal responsibility, it closes the criminal proceedings without informing the person concerned and applies to the court for an order for the adoption of compulsory medical measures against that person?

                  4.

                  Is a person in relation to whom compulsory treatment has been applied for to be regarded as being ‘suspected’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU and Article 2(3) of Directive 2013/48/EU in the case where, in the course of the first inspection of the crime scene and the initial investigative measures at the home of the victim and her son, a police officer, after identifying traces of blood on the son’s body, questioned him about his reasons for killing his mother and taking her body out into the street and, after the son had answered those questions, handcuffed him. If so, must the person in question be provided with information pursuant to Article 3(1) in conjunction with (2) of Directive 2012/13/EU even at that stage, and how are the particular needs of that person to be taken into account, pursuant to paragraph 2, when information is provided to him in such circumstances, that is to say where the police officer was aware that the person in question suffered from a mental disorder?

                  5.

                  Are national rules such as those at issue, which effectively allow a person to be deprived of his liberty by being committed to a psychiatric hospital under a procedure provided for in the Zakon za zdraveto (Health Law) (a precautionary compulsory measure ordered where there is evidence that the person concerned suffers from a mental illness and is at risk of committing a criminal offence, but not where an offence has already been committed), compatible with Article 3 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence, in the case where the real reason for initiating the procedure is the offence on account of which criminal proceedings have been brought against the person committed for treatment, and does this circumvent the right, on arrest, to a fair trial which must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 5(4) of the ECHR, that is to say a trial in which the court is empowered to review not only compliance with the rules of procedure but also the suspicion justifying the arrest and the lawfulness of the objective pursued by that measure, the court being obliged to carry out such a review in the case where the person in question was arrested under the procedure laid down in the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks?

                  6.

                  Does the concept of the presumption of innocence in Article 3 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 also include the presumption that persons lacking criminal responsibility did not commit the offence representing a danger to the general public of which they are accused by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, until such time as proof to the contrary is established in accordance with the rules of procedure (in criminal proceedings, with due regard for the rights of the defence)?

                  7.

                  Do national rules which confer on the adjudicating court different powers in relation to the examination as to the lawfulness of the pre-trial procedure which it must carry out ex officio, depending on whether:

                              1)

                              the court examines an indictment from the Public Prosecutor’s Office in which the latter maintains that a particular mentally-healthy person has committed intentional, unlawful homicide (Article 249(1) in conjunction with (2) of the NPK), or

                              2)

                              the court examines an application from the Public Prosecutor’s Office in which the latter maintains that the person concerned has committed intentional, unlawful homicide but that act does not constitute a criminal offence because the perpetrator suffers from a mental disorder, and by which it seeks a court order for the imposition by the State of compulsory treatment,
                              afford vulnerable persons an effective remedy as stipulated in Article 13 in conjunction with Article 12 of Directive 2013/48/EU and Article 8(2) in conjunction with Article 3(2) of Directive 2012/13/EU, and are the different powers available to the court depending on the nature of the procedure, the latter being itself dictated by whether the mental health of the person identified as the perpetrator is such as to render him criminally responsible, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 21(1) of the Charter?

         (1)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).

         (2)  Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ 2013 L 294, p. 1).


title: Case T-751/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BNP Paribas v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — Refusal of the ECB to grant authorisation to the applicant to exclude exposures meeting certain conditions from the calculation of the leverage ratio — Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Discretion of the ECB — Errors of law — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BNP Paribas v ECB
      (Case T-751/16) (1)

      ((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - Refusal of the ECB to grant authorisation to the applicant to exclude exposures meeting certain conditions from the calculation of the leverage ratio - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))
      (2018/C 352/36)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Grégoire and C. De Jonghe, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax, G. Bassani and C. Olivier, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of European Central Bank Decision ECB/SSM/2016-9695000CG7B84NLR5984/92 of 24 August 2016, taken pursuant to Article 4(1)(d) and Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls European Central Bank (ECB) Decision ECB/SSM/2016-9695000CG7B84NLR5984/92 of 24 August 2016;

                  2.

                  Orders the ECB to pay the costs;

                  3.

                  Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


title: Case C-476/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 July 2018 — PannonHitel Pénzügyi Zrt. v WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Kft.

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/22

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 July 2018 — PannonHitel Pénzügyi Zrt. v WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Kft.
      (Case C-476/18)
      (2018/C 352/27)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: PannonHitel Pénzügyi Zrt.

         Defendant: WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Kft.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) 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 (‘the Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are rescheduled may be treated in the same way as passengers whose flights are cancelled, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, and that they may therefore rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Regulation where the air carrier informs passengers of the rescheduling the day before the originally scheduled departure date and, as a consequence of the change, passengers suffer a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours compared with the originally scheduled arrival time, that is, they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier?

                  2.

                  Must Articles 5 to 7 of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are rescheduled may be treated in the same way as passengers affected by a delay for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation and that they may therefore rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Regulation where, as a consequence of the rescheduling, they suffer a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier?

         (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-768/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BNP Paribas v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — Refusal of the ECB to grant authorisation to the applicant to exclude exposures meeting certain conditions from the calculation of the leverage ratio — Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Discretion of the ECB — Errors of law — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BNP Paribas v ECB
      (Case T-768/16) (1)

      ((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - Refusal of the ECB to grant authorisation to the applicant to exclude exposures meeting certain conditions from the calculation of the leverage ratio - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))
      (2018/C 352/37)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax, G. Bassani and C. Olivier, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of European Central Bank Decision ECB/SSM/2016-R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/136 of 24 August 2016, taken pursuant to Article 4(1)(d) and Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls European Central Bank (ECB) Decision ECB/SSM/2016-R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/136 of 24 August 2016;

                  2.

                  Orders the ECB to pay the costs;

                  3.

                  Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


title: Case C-561/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Saras Energía SA v Administración del Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2012/27/EU — Article 7(1), (4) and (9) — Article 20(4) and (6) — Promotion of energy efficiency — Energy efficiency obligation scheme — Other policy measures — Energy Efficiency National Fund — Establishment of such a fund as the main measure implementing energy efficiency obligations — Contribution obligation — Designation of the obligated parties — Energy distributors and/or retail energy sales companies)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/4

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Saras Energía SA v Administración del Estado
      (Case C-561/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2012/27/EU - Article 7(1), (4) and (9) - Article 20(4) and (6) - Promotion of energy efficiency - Energy efficiency obligation scheme - Other policy measures - Energy Efficiency National Fund - Establishment of such a fund as the main measure implementing energy efficiency obligations - Contribution obligation - Designation of the obligated parties - Energy distributors and/or retail energy sales companies))
      (2018/C 352/04)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Supremo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Saras Energía SA

         Defendant: Administración del Estado

         Interveners: Endesa SA, Endesa Energía SA, Endesa Energía XXI SLU, Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas SL, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico SAU, Nexus Energía SA, Nexus Renovables SLU, Engie España SL, Villar Mir Energía SL, Energya VM Gestión de Energía SLU, Estaciones de Servicio de Guipúzcoa SA, Acciona Green Energy Developments SLU, Fortia Energía SL

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Articles 7 and 20 of Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation which lays down, as the principal method of fulfilling energy efficiency obligations, a mechanism of annual contribution to an Energy Efficiency National Fund, provided, on the one hand, that that legislation ensures the achievement of energy savings to an extent equivalent to the energy efficiency obligation schemes which may be implemented under Article 7(1) of that directive, and, on the other, that the requirements of Article 7(10) and (11) of that directive, are satisfied, which it is for the referring court to ascertain;

                  2.

                  Article 7 of Directive 2012/27 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes energy efficiency obligations on only certain specific undertakings in the energy sector, provided that the designation of those companies as obligated parties is actually based on explicitly stated, objective and non-discriminatory criteria, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case C-482/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 24 July 2018 — Google Ireland Limited v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vámigazgatósága

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 24 July 2018 — Google Ireland Limited v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vámigazgatósága
      (Case C-482/18)
      (2018/C 352/28)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Google Ireland Limited

         Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vámigazgatósága

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should Articles 18 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and the prohibition on discrimination be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s tax legislation in which the penalty provisions require, for breach of the obligation to register for the purposes of an advertisement tax, the imposition of a fine for failure to comply, the total amount of which, for companies not established in Hungary, can be 2 000 times greater than the amount of the fine for companies established in Hungary?

                  2.

                  Can the penalty described in the previous question, which involves a markedly large sum and is punitive in nature, be considered as capable of discouraging service providers who are not established in Hungary from providing services in that country?

                  3.

                  Should Article 56 TFEU and the prohibition on discrimination be interpreted as precluding legislation under which, for undertakings established in Hungary, the obligation to register is satisfied automatically, without making an explicit application, through the allocation of a Hungarian tax identification number as part of the process of registering with the Companies Registry, irrespective of whether or not the undertaking publishes advertisements, whereas for undertakings that are not established in Hungary but that publish advertisements in that country it is not satisfied automatically, and instead they have specifically to comply with the obligation to register, and can be subject to a specific penalty if they fail to do so?

                  4.

                  If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should Article 56 TFEU and the prohibition on discrimination be interpreted as precluding a penalty such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, imposed for breach of the obligation to register for the purposes of an advertisement tax, in so far as the aforesaid legislation may be contrary to that article?

                  5.

                  Should Article 56 TFEU and the prohibition on discrimination be interpreted as precluding a provision under which the decision to impose a fine on an undertaking established abroad is final and enforceable from the moment when notice of it is served, and the decision may be contested only through judicial proceedings in which the court may not hold a hearing and only documentary evidence is admissible, while fines imposed on undertakings established in Hungary may be contested in an administrative procedure and, moreover, the judicial proceedings are not restricted in any way?

                  6.

                  In view of the right to good administration established in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’), should Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that this obligation is not satisfied where the fine for failure to comply is imposed in the form of a daily fine, meaning that the amount of the fine is tripled while the service provider is still unaware of the earlier decision and is therefore unable to make good its omission before the imposition of the next fine?

                  7.

                  Should Article 56 TFEU, as read with the right to good administration in Article 41(1) of the Charter, the right to be heard in Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial in Article 47 of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that these requirements are not satisfied where the decision cannot be contested in an administrative procedure and where, in the administrative court proceedings, only documentary evidence is admissible and the court cannot hold a hearing?


title: Case C-161/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Information society — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Concept — Publication online, without the consent of the rightholder, of a photograph previously published on another website without any restrictions and with the consent of the rightholder — New public)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/10

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff
      (Case C-161/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Concept - Publication online, without the consent of the rightholder, of a photograph previously published on another website without any restrictions and with the consent of the rightholder - New public))
      (2018/C 352/13)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant on a point of law: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

         Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Dirk Renckhoff

         Operative part of the judgment

      The concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers the posting on one website of a photograph previously posted, without any restriction preventing it from being downloaded and with the consent of the copyright holder, on another website.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


title: Case T-825/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Pallas Halloumi) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Pallas Halloumi — Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI — 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))

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Pallas Halloumi)
      (Case T-825/16) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Pallas Halloumi - Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI - 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 352/38)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

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

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

         Re:

      Action brought against an appeal brought before the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 2065/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case C-300/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Hochtief AG v Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Review procedures — Directive 89/665/EC — Action for damages — Article 2(6) — National rules making the admissibility of any action for damages subject to a prior and definitive determination of the illegality of the decision of the contracting authority giving rise to the damage alleged — Actions for annulment — Prior action before an arbitration committee — Judicial review of arbitral decisions — National rules excluding pleas not raised before the arbitration committee — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/11

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Hochtief AG v Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata
      (Case C-300/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Review procedures - Directive 89/665/EC - Action for damages - Article 2(6) - National rules making the admissibility of any action for damages subject to a prior and definitive determination of the illegality of the decision of the contracting authority giving rise to the damage alleged - Actions for annulment - Prior action before an arbitration committee - Judicial review of arbitral decisions - National rules excluding pleas not raised before the arbitration committee - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence))
      (2018/C 352/14)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Kúria

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Hochtief AG

         Defendant: Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 2(6) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, must be interpreted as not precluding a national procedural rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the possibility of asserting a claim under civil law in the event of an infringement of the rules governing public procurement and the award of public contracts subject to the condition that the infringement be definitively established by an arbitration committee or, in the context of judicial review of an decision of that arbitration committee, by a court.

                  2.

                  European Union law, and in particular Article 1(1) and (3) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2014/23, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action for damages, it does not preclude a national procedural rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts the judicial review of arbitral decisions issued by an arbitration committee responsible at first instance for the review of decisions taken by contracting authorities in public procurement procedures to examine only the pleas raised before that committee.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case T-847/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — POA (COWBOYS HALLOUMI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark COWBOYS HALLOUMI — Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI — 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))

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — POA (COWBOYS HALLOUMI)
      (Case T-847/16) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark COWBOYS HALLOUMI - Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI - 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 352/39)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pagkypriosorganismos ageladotrofon (POA) (Latsia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against an appeal brought before the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 2781/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus et POA.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case C-16/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — TGE Gas Engineering GmbH — Sucursal em Portugal v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Origin and scope of the right to deduct)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/4

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — TGE Gas Engineering GmbH — Sucursal em Portugal v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
      (Case C-16/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Deduction of input tax - Origin and scope of the right to deduct))
      (2018/C 352/05)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: TGE Gas Engineering GmbH — Sucursal em Portugal

         Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, and the principle of neutrality must be interpreted as precluding the tax authority of a Member State from regarding a company which has its headquarters in another Member State and the branch which it has in the first of those States as constituting two separate taxable entities on the ground that each of those entities has a tax identification number, and, for that reason, from refusing that branch the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) on the debit notes issued by an economic interest group of which that company, and not its branch, is a member.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


title: Case C-484/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 20 July 2018 — Société de perception et de distribution des droits des artistes-interprètes de la musique and de la danse (SPEDIDAM), PG, GF v Institut national de l’audiovisuel

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/24

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 20 July 2018 — Société de perception et de distribution des droits des artistes-interprètes de la musique and de la danse (SPEDIDAM), PG, GF v Institut national de l’audiovisuel
      (Case C-484/18)
      (2018/C 352/29)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de cassation

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Société de perception et de distribution des droits des artistes-interprètes de la musique and de la danse (SPEDIDAM), PG, GF

         Respondent: Institut national de l’audiovisuel

         Other parties: Syndicat indépendant des artistes-interprètes (SIA-UNSA), Syndicat français des artistes-interprètes (CGT)

         Question referred

      Must Article 2(b), Article 3(2)(a) and Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) be interpreted as not precluding national rules, such as those laid down in Article 49 II of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 on freedom of communication, as amended by Article 44 of Law No 2006-961 of 1 August 2006, from establishing, for the benefit of the National Audiovisual Institute, the beneficiary of the exploitation rights of national broadcasting companies in the audiovisual archives, derogating provisions under which the terms on which performers’ works can be exploited and the remuneration for that exploitation are governed by agreements concluded between the performers themselves or the employee organisations representing performers and that institute, which must specify, inter alia, the scale of remuneration and the arrangements for payment of that remuneration?

         (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


title: Case T-797/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Star Television Productions v EUIPO — Marc Dorcel (STAR) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark STAR — No genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Star Television Productions v EUIPO — Marc Dorcel (STAR)
      (Case T-797/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark STAR - No genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 352/40)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Star Television Productions Ltd (Tortola, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek, acting as agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Marc Dorcel SA (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Soyer, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 (Case R 1519/2016-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Star Television Productions and Marc Dorcel.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Star Television Productions Ltd to bear the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.


title: Case C-52/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — VTB Bank (Austria) AG v Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 2013/36/EU — Articles 64, 65 and 67 — Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Article 395(1) and (5) — Supervision of credit institutions — Supervisory powers and powers to impose penalties — Large exposure limits — Legislation of a Member State under which interest is levied where those limits are exceeded — Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 — Article 48 — Attribution of areas of competence between the European Central Bank (ECB) and national authorities — Formally initiated supervisory procedure)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/5

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — VTB Bank (Austria) AG v Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde
      (Case C-52/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2013/36/EU - Articles 64, 65 and 67 - Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Article 395(1) and (5) - Supervision of credit institutions - Supervisory powers and powers to impose penalties - Large exposure limits - Legislation of a Member State under which interest is levied where those limits are exceeded - Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - Article 48 - Attribution of areas of competence between the European Central Bank (ECB) and national authorities - Formally initiated supervisory procedure))
      (2018/C 352/06)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: VTB Bank (Austria) AG

         Defendant: Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Articles 64 and 65(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC, and Article 395(1) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where the exposure limits set out in Article 395(1) of that regulation are exceeded, ‘absorption’ interest is to be levied automatically on a credit institution, even if that institution fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 395(5) of the regulation under which a credit institution may exceed those limits.

                  2.

                  Article 48(3) of the Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) is to be interpreted as meaning that a supervisory procedure cannot be regarded as having been formally initiated, within the meaning of that provision, either where a credit institution reports to the national supervisory authority that the limits set in Article 395(1) of Regulation No 575/2013 have been exceeded, or where that authority has already adopted a decision in a parallel procedure concerning similar breaches.

         (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.