title: Case C-174/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 5 March 2018 — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v État belge

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 5 March 2018 — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v État belge
   (Case C-174/18)
   (2018/C 166/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz

      Defendants: État belge

      Question referred

   Is it contrary to Article 39 [EC, now Article 45 TFEU] for the Belgian tax system, in Article 155 of the CIR/92 and regardless of whether or not Circular No Ci.RH.331/575.420 of 12 March 2008 is applied, to have the effect that the Luxembourg pensions of the applicant Mr Jacob, which are exempted from tax pursuant to Article 18 of the Convention concluded between Belgium and Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation, are taken into account for the purpose of calculating the tax payable in Belgium and used as the basis of assessment for the granting of tax advantages provided for under the CIR/92, even though they should not form part of that basis by reason of their total exemption as provided for in the Convention for the avoidance of double taxation, and that those advantages, such as the tax-free allowance, long-term savings, costs paid with service vouchers, costs incurred in saving energy in the home, costs incurred in protecting the home against theft or fire, and charitable donations made by the applicant Mr Jacob, are partly lost, reduced or granted to a lesser extent than if both applicants had income earned in Belgium, which, for its part, is taxable in Belgium and is not exempt and may thus absorb the tax advantages in their entirety?


title: Case C-384/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2018 — European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission (Appeal — Plant protection products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 — Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution — Inclusion of active substance ‘copper compounds’ in that list — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures — Individually concerned person)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2018 — European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission
   (Case C-384/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Plant protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 - Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution - Inclusion of active substance ‘copper compounds’ in that list - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures - Individually concerned person))
   (2018/C 166/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Union Copper Task Force (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, C. Vila Gisbert, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, abogadas, and by M. Miserendino, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders European Union Copper Task Force to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case T-193/18: Action brought on 19 March 2018 — Andreas Stihl v EUIPO — Giro Travel (Combination of colours grey and orange)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/42

         Action brought on 19 March 2018 — Andreas Stihl v EUIPO — Giro Travel (Combination of colours grey and orange)
   (Case T-193/18)
   (2018/C 166/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG (Waiblingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker, M. Pemsel and C. Eulenpesch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Giro Travel Company (Roman, Romania)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU colour mark representing the combination of colours grey and orange — Trade mark registration No 7 472 723

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2018 in Case R 200/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 4 in connection with Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case C-190/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the justice de paix de Schaerbeek (Belgium) lodged on 13 March 2018 — Société nationale de chemins de fer belges (SNCB) v Gherasim Sorin Rusu

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the justice de paix de Schaerbeek (Belgium) lodged on 13 March 2018 — Société nationale de chemins de fer belges (SNCB) v Gherasim Sorin Rusu
   (Case C-190/18)
   (2018/C 166/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Justice de paix de Schaerbeek

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société nationale de chemins de fer belges (SNCB)

      Defendant: Gherasim Sorin Rusu

      Question referred

   Do Council Directive 93/13/EC on terms in consumer contracts (1) and Regulation No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (2) apply to relations between the SNCB and passengers caught without a valid ticket?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14).


title: Case C-431/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) v José Blanco Marqués (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 12 and 46a to 46c — Benefits of the same kind — Definition — Rule against overlapping — Definition — Conditions — National rule providing for a supplement to the total permanent incapacity pension for workers of at least 55 years of age — Suspension of the supplement in the event of employment or receipt of a retirement pension)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/8

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) v José Blanco Marqués
   (Case C-431/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 12 and 46a to 46c - Benefits of the same kind - Definition - Rule against overlapping - Definition - Conditions - National rule providing for a supplement to the total permanent incapacity pension for workers of at least 55 years of age - Suspension of the supplement in the event of employment or receipt of a retirement pension))
   (2018/C 166/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

      Defendant: José Blanco Marqués

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the supplement to a total permanent incapacity pension is suspended during the period in which the beneficiary of that pension receives a retirement pension in another Member State or in Switzerland, constitutes a provision on reduction of benefit for the purposes of Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008.

               2.

               Article 46a(3)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘legislation of the first Member State’ in that article is to be interpreted as including the interpretation of a provision of national law made by a supreme national court.

               3.

               A supplement to a total permanent incapacity pension granted to a worker under the law of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, and a retirement pension acquired by that same worker in Switzerland must be regarded as being of the same kind within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008.

               4.

               Article 46b(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a national rule to prevent overlapping, such as that in Article 6 of Decreto 1646/1972 para la aplicación de la ley 24/1972, de 21 de junio, en materia de prestaciones del Régimen General de la Seguridad Social (Decree 1646/1972 on the Implementation of Law 24/1972 of 21 June 1972 concerning general social security system benefits), of 23 June 1972, is not applicable to a benefit calculated in accordance with Article 46(1)(a)(i) of that regulation when that benefit is not referred to in Annex IV, part D, to that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Case C-125/17: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italy) — Luigi Bisignani v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Free movement of capital — Articles 64 and 65 TFEU — Directive 2011/16/EU — Cooperation in the field of taxation — Transfer of capital to the Vatican City State — Obligation to declare a transfer of funds sent or received from abroad — Repeal)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/17

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italy) — Luigi Bisignani v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma
   (Case C-125/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Free movement of capital - Articles 64 and 65 TFEU - Directive 2011/16/EU - Cooperation in the field of taxation - Transfer of capital to the Vatican City State - Obligation to declare a transfer of funds sent or received from abroad - Repeal))
   (2018/C 166/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Luigi Bisignani

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma

      Operative part of the order

   Article 64(1) and Article 65(1)(a) TFEU must be interpreted to the effect that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which definitively repeals the offence of not declaring transfers of funds abroad.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.


title: Case T-80/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland v EMA (Medicinal products for human use — Validation of an application for designation as an orphan medicinal product — Significant benefit — EMA decision refusing to validate an application for designation as an orphan medicinal product — Article 3(1)(b) and Article 5(1), (2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland v EMA
   (Case T-80/16) (1)

   ((Medicinal products for human use - Validation of an application for designation as an orphan medicinal product - Significant benefit - EMA decision refusing to validate an application for designation as an orphan medicinal product - Article 3(1)(b) and Article 5(1), (2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000))
   (2018/C 166/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: D. Anderson QC, M. Birdling, barrister, G. Castle and S. Cowlishaw, solicitors)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo and M. Tovar Gomis, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Petersen and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the EMA decision of 15 December 2015 refusing to validate the application submitted by Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland for designation of Idursulfase-IT as an orphan medicinal product.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) dated 15 December 2015 refusing to validate the application submitted by Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd seeking the designation of Idursulfase-IT as an orphan medicinal product;

               2.

               Orders the EMA to bear its own costs, as well as those of Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Case T-196/18: Action brought on 20 March 2018 — Vital Capital Investments and Others v Council and Others

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/43

         Action brought on 20 March 2018 — Vital Capital Investments and Others v Council and Others
   (Case T-196/18)
   (2018/C 166/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Vital Capital Investments LP (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) and 6 others (represented by: A. Markides, M. Ioannides, C. Velaris and C. Velaris, lawyers, A. Robertson, QC, and G. Rothschild, Barrister)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup (represented by the Council of the European Union) and European Union (represented by the European Commission)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus;

         or in the alternative:

               —

               declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants;

         and in any event:

               —

               order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-147/18, APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others.


title: Case T-581/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 –Popotas v Ombudsman (Civil Service — Officials — Call for an expression of interest — Secretary General of the office of the European Ombudsman — Opinion of the Advisory Committee — Failure to take that opinion into consideration — Infringement of the selection procedure — Manifest errors of assessment — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Liability)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 –Popotas v Ombudsman
   (Case T-581/16) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Call for an expression of interest - Secretary General of the office of the European Ombudsman - Opinion of the Advisory Committee - Failure to take that opinion into consideration - Infringement of the selection procedure - Manifest errors of assessment - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Liability))
   (2018/C 166/35)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Costas Popotas (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Ombudsman (represented by: L. Papadias, P. Dyrberg and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, firstly, the annulment of the decision to appoint Ms G. to the post of Secretary General of the office of the Ombudsman, of the Ombudsman’s decision of 9 November 2015 rejecting the claims brought by the applicant against that decision and of the Ombudsman’s decision not to invite him to an interview and, secondly, compensation for the loss which the applicant has allegedly suffered following those decisions

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Costas Popotas and the European Ombudsman each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016 (action initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case number F-10/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-201/18: Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Diusa Rendering and Assograssi v Commission

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/44

         Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Diusa Rendering and Assograssi v Commission
   (Case T-201/18)
   (2018/C 166/56)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Diusa Rendering Srl (Piacenza, Italy), Assograssi — Associazione Nazionale Produttori Grassi e Proteine Animali (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Moretto, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to put to a vote, by the Regulatory Committee, a draft proposal to re-examine the prohibition on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers derived from materials in Category 2, provided for in Article 43(3) of Regulation No 1069/2009, pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 5a of Decision 1999/648/EC, the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation No 1069/2009, Regulation No 178/2001 and Regulation No 999/2001 and breached the general principles of non-discrimination and proportionality;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants submit that, until 2011, the export to third countries of organic fertilisers and soil improvers (OFSIs) derived from animal by-products in Category 2 (and/or 3) was permitted, the sole exception being the ban on exporting OFSIs containing processed animal protein (PAP) derived from ruminants, following the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 1), and because of the Commission’s failure to adopt the necessary implementation provisions the export to third countries of OFSIs derived from Category 2 materials is now prohibited. That ban is still in force, although almost all the EU Member States are now countries recognised as having a negligible BSE risk, despite the fact that the international standard determined by the Office international des épizooties (OIE) does not provide for a similar ban on OFSIs originating in countries with that risk status.
   Moreover, the applicants continue, although the export of OFSIs derived from Category 2 materials — even those originating in Member States recognised as having a negligible BSE risk — is prohibited, the European Union authorises the marketing and use of those products on its territory; it thereby acknowledges that, in fact, OFSIs derived from Category 2 materials in accordance with the requirements imposed by Regulation No 1069/2009 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25 February 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2011 L 54, p. 1) do not represent a risk to human or animal health.
   According to the applicants, although the European Union imposes a complete ban on exporting the OFSIs in the present case, it authorises imports from third countries — including from countries recognised as having a controlled or undetermined BSE risk — not only of foodstuffs and feed that may have been produced using OFSIs originating from third countries whose safety standards are not necessarily the same as those guaranteed in respect of OFSIs produced in the European Union, but also imports of live animals and fresh animal meat (pigs and poultry) that might have been directly fed with meal derived from, inter alia, ruminant materials.
   The damage suffered by EU operators as a result of that ban on exporting OFSIs derived from Category 2 by-products is, in the applicants’ view, enormous.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-189/18, Lipitalia 2000 and Assograssi v Commission.
   The applicants rely, in particular, on the infringement of Articles 43(3) and 52(4) of Regulation No 1069/2009.


title: Case C-470/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited, Maura Sheehy v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Right of members of the public concerned to a review procedure — Premature challenge — Concepts of a not prohibitively expensive procedure and of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of the directive — Applicability of the Aarhus Convention)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited, Maura Sheehy v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Ireland, Attorney General
   (Case C-470/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Right of members of the public concerned to a review procedure - Premature challenge - Concepts of a not prohibitively expensive procedure and of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of the directive - Applicability of the Aarhus Convention))
   (2018/C 166/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court (Ireland)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited, Maura Sheehy

      Defendants: An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Ireland, Attorney General

      Notice party: EirGrid plc

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 11(4) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive applies to a procedure before a court of a Member State, such as that in the main proceedings, in which it is determined whether leave may be granted to bring a challenge in the course of a development consent process, a fortiori where that Member State has not determined at what stage a challenge may be brought.

               2.

               Where an applicant raises both pleas alleging infringement of the rules on public participation in decision-making in environmental matters and pleas alleging infringement of other rules, the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive laid down in Article 11(4) of Directive 2011/92 applies only to the costs relating to the part of the challenge alleging infringement of the rules on public participation.

               3.

               Article 9(3) and (4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ensure effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU environmental law, the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive applies to the part of a challenge that would not be covered by that requirement, as it results, under Directive 2011/92, from the answer given in point 2 of the present operative part, in so far as the applicant seeks, by that challenge, to ensure that national environmental law is complied with. Those provisions do not have direct effect, but it is for the national court to give an interpretation of national procedural law which, to the fullest extent possible, is consistent with them.

               4.

               A Member State cannot derogate from the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive, laid down by Article 9(4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters and Article 11(4) of Directive 2011/92, where a challenge is deemed frivolous or vexatious, or where there is no link between the alleged breach of national environmental law and damage to the environment.

      (1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.


title: Case T-147/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/36

         Action brought on 1 March 2018 — APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others
   (Case T-147/18)
   (2018/C 166/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: APG Intercon Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 147 others (represented by: A. Markides, K. Scordis, A. Gavrielides, C. Velaris, C. Velaris, lawyers, A. Robertson QC (Queen’s Counsel) and G. Rothschild, Barrister)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup (represented by the Council of the European Union) and European Union (represented by the European Commission)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus;

         or in the alternative:

               —

               declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants;

         and in any event:

               —

               order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the fundamental principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination:

                           —

                           there was unlawful discrimination between creditors of Laiki Bank and/or between creditors of Bank of Cyprus as a result of measures adopted by European Union institutions;

                           —

                           the said breaches were sufficiently serious in that the institutions manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on their discretion; and

                           —

                           there is a direct causal link between the breaches and the damage sustained by the applicants.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the fundamental principle of protection of property rights:

                           —

                           the applicant depositors have been deprived of their property rights as a result of measures adopted by European Union institutions;

                           —

                           the applicant depositors have not been granted fair compensation for their resultant loss, in breach of the fundamental principle of protection of property rights;

                           —

                           the said breaches were sufficiently serious in that the institutions manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on their discretion; and

                           —

                           there is a direct causal link between the breaches and the damage sustained by the applicants.


title: Case C-58/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de Paix du canton de Visé (Belgium) lodged on 30 January 2018 — Michel Schyns v Belfius Banque SA

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de Paix du canton de Visé (Belgium) lodged on 30 January 2018 — Michel Schyns v Belfius Banque SA
   (Case C-58/18)
   (2018/C 166/23)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Justice de Paix du canton de Visé

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Michel Schyns

      Defendant: Belfius Banque SA

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Does Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, (1) in so far as it is intended to ensure that the consumer will be in a position to assess whether the proposed credit agreement is suited to his needs and to his financial situation, preclude the wording of the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Loi sur le crédit à la consommation (Law on consumer credit) (repealed and now replaced by Article VII.75 of the Code de droit économique (Code on Economic Law)), in so far as it provides that the creditor and the credit intermediary must find, within the framework of the credit agreements which they usually offer or in which they are usually involved, the type and the amount of credit most suitable, taking into account the consumer’s financial situation at the time the credit agreement is concluded and the purpose of the credit inasmuch as that provision establishes a general obligation on the creditor or the credit intermediary to find the most suitable credit for the consumer which is not included in the wording of the abovementioned directive?

                           (b)

                           Does Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, in so far as it is intended to ensure that the consumer will be in a position to assess whether the proposed credit agreement is suited to his needs and to his financial situation, preclude the wording of the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Loi sur le crédit à la consommation (repealed and now replaced by Art. Vll.77(2) subparagraph 1 of the Code de droit économique), in so far as the creditor may conclude a credit agreement only if, having regard to the information which is or should have been available to him, particularly on the basis of the consultation required under Article 9 of the Loi du 10 août 2001 relative à la Centrale des crédits aux particuliers (Law of 10 August 2001 on the Central Office for Credits to Individuals) and on the basis of the information referred to in Article 10, he must reasonably take the view that the consumer will be able to fulfil the obligations arising from the agreement inasmuch as it follows that the creditor must himself decide on the expediency of the possible conclusion of a credit agreement on behalf of the consumer?

               2.

               In the event of a negative reply to the first question, must Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers be interpreted as always requiring the creditor and the credit intermediary to assess, on behalf of a consumer, the expediency of the possible conclusion of a credit agreement?

      (1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).


title: Case T-209/18: Action brought on 22 March 2018 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Motor vehicles)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/46

         Action brought on 22 March 2018 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Motor vehicles)
   (Case T-209/18)
   (2018/C 166/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: Community design No 1230593-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2018 in Case R 945/2016-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested Community design No 1230593-0001.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-63/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 1 February 2018 — Vitali SpA v Autostrade per l’Italia SpA

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 1 February 2018 — Vitali SpA v Autostrade per l’Italia SpA
   (Case C-63/18)
   (2018/C 166/24)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vitali SpA

      Defendant: Autostrade per l’Italia SpA

      Question referred

   Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services referred to in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 71 of Directive 2014/24 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (1) which does not contemplate quantitative limitations on subcontracting, and the EU-law principle of proportionality preclude the application of national legislation in matters relating to public procurement, such as the Italian rule set out in the third sentence of Article 105(2) of Legislative Decree No 50 of 18 April 2016, pursuant to which subcontracting cannot exceed 30 % of the total amount of the contract for works, services or supplies?

      (1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


title: Case C-482/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Georg Stollwitzer v ÖBB Personenverkehr AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Article 45 TFEU — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 21(1) — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 2, 6 and 16 — Reference date for the purpose of advancement — Discriminatory legislation of a Member State which does not allow periods of activity completed before reaching the age of 18 to be taken into account for the purpose of determining remuneration — Abolition of provisions that are contrary to the principle of equal treatment)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Georg Stollwitzer v ÖBB Personenverkehr AG
   (Case C-482/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 45 TFEU - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 21(1) - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2, 6 and 16 - Reference date for the purpose of advancement - Discriminatory legislation of a Member State which does not allow periods of activity completed before reaching the age of 18 to be taken into account for the purpose of determining remuneration - Abolition of provisions that are contrary to the principle of equal treatment))
   (2018/C 166/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Georg Stollwitzer

      Defendant: ÖBB Personenverkehr AG

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 TFEU and Articles 2, 6 and 16 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to end discrimination on grounds of age arising as a result of the application of national law that took into account, for the purpose of the categorisation of the employees of an undertaking within pay scales, only periods of activity completed after the age of 18, retroactively abolishes that age limit in respect of all such workers and allows only experience acquired with other undertakings operating in the same economic sector to be taken into account.

      (1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.


title: Case T-210/18: Action brought on 22 March 2018 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Cars)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/46

         Action brought on 22 March 2018 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Cars)
   (Case T-210/18)
   (2018/C 166/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: Community design No 198387-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2018 in Case R 941/2016-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested Community design No 198387-0001.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case T-148/18: Action brought on 2 March 2018 — UE v Commission

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/37

         Action brought on 2 March 2018 — UE v Commission
   (Case T-148/18)
   (2018/C 166/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: UE (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 20 November 2017 rejecting her complaint related to a request for compensation of the damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               grant the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the fault of the defendant, evaluated at the sum of 10 000 euros and;

               —

               order the reimbursement of the applicant’s incurred costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the violation by the defendant of the principle of sound administration and of Article 41 of the Charter on the principle of reasonable delay.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the respect by the applicant of the principle of reasonable delay in the submission of the request for assistance.


title: Case T-213/18: Action brought on 27 March 2018 — Brita v EUIPO (Shape of tap for preparing and dispensing beverages)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/47

         Action brought on 27 March 2018 — Brita v EUIPO (Shape of tap for preparing and dispensing beverages)
   (Case T-213/18)
   (2018/C 166/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Brita GmbH (Taunusstein, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark in black and white (Shape of tap for preparing and dispensing beverages) — Application for registration No 16 053 068

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2018 in Case R 1864/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order to accept the European Union Trademark Application no. 16 053 068 in relation to all the goods and services applied for in classes 7, 11, 21, 37 and 40;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear its own costs and the fees and costs of BRITA GmbH.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-179/18: Action brought on 7 March 2018 — Scordis, Papapetrou & Co and Others v Council and Others

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/37

         Action brought on 7 March 2018 — Scordis, Papapetrou & Co and Others v Council and Others
   (Case T-179/18)
   (2018/C 166/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Scordis, Papapetrou & Co LLC (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 5 others (represented by: A. Markides, lawyer, A. Robertson, QC, and G. Rothschild, barrister)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup (represented by the Council of the European Union) and European Union (represented by the European Commission)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus;

         or in the alternative:

               —

               declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants;

         and in any event:

               —

               order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-147/18, APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others.


title: Case T-222/18: Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/48

         Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL)
   (Case T-222/18)
   (2018/C 166/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal SA (Anadia, Portugal) (represented by: J. Mioludo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany).

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL — EU trade mark No 13 907 027

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2018 in Case R 1206/2017-5.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 4 April 2017 in Cancellation No. 13433 C;

               —

               refuse the application for a declaration of invalidity of EU trade mark registration No. 13 907 027 ‘ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL (fig.)’;

               —

               maintain the EU trade mark registration No. 13 907 027 ‘ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL (fig.)’ valid for all the covered goods;

               —

               order EUIPO and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to bear their own costs and pay those of the Appelant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-684/17: Order of the General Court of 13 mars 2018 — Amorepacific v EUIPO — Primavera Life (p primera Pure Sprout Energy)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/49

         Order of the General Court of 13 mars 2018 — Amorepacific v EUIPO — Primavera Life (p primera Pure Sprout Energy)
   (Case T-684/17) (1)

   (2018/C 166/62)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.


201806150501954992018/C 231/492692018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180502383922Case T-269/18: Action brought on 2 May 2018 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf (ZARA)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN3820120180502EN0049382392Action brought on 2 May 2018 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf (ZARA)
   (Case T-269/18)2018/C 231/49Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ffauf SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ZARA — Application for registration No 8 929 952

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2018 in Joined Cases R 359/2015-5 and R 409/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upheld in part the intervener’s appeal and rejected the application for the European Union word mark ZARA No 8 929 952 for the following goods and services: Class 29 — preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes, milk products; edible oils and fats; Class 30 — rice, tapioca, sago, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery products, yeast, baking-powder, salt, mustard, vinegar, sauces (condiments), spices, rice-based snack food; Class 31 — fresh vegetables; Class 32 — fresh juices; Class 35 — retailing and wholesaling in shops, selling via global computer networks, by catalogue, by mail order, by telephone, by radio and television, and via other electronic means of preserved, frozen, dried and cooked vegetables; edible oils, rice, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, vinegar, sauces (condiments); Class 43 — restaurant services (food), self-service restaurants, cafeterias;

            —

            order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the intervener (Ffauf SA) to pay the costs arising from this action before the General Court;

            —

            order the opponent, FFAUF, S.A, to pay the costs arising from Joined Cases R 359/2015-5 and R 409/2015-5 before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

            —

            Infringement of Articles 15(1) and 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 22(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2868/95;

            —

            Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


201806150401954882018/C 231/132242018CJC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180328111111Case C-224/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 28 March 2018 — Budimex S.A.
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN1110120180328EN0013111111Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 28 March 2018 — Budimex S.A.
   (Case C-224/18)2018/C 231/13Language of the case: Polish
      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Budimex S.A.

      Other party to the proceedings: Minister Finansów

      Question referred

   In a situation where the parties to a transaction have agreed that payment for construction works or construction/installation works requires express acceptance by the client of their performance in the formal record of acceptance for the works, does the performance of services, for the purposes of Article 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (
         1
      ) in respect of such a transaction occur at the time of actual performance of the construction or construction/installation works, or at the time of acceptance of the performance of the works by the client, expressed in the formal record of acceptance?
   (
         1
      )	OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


201806150431954812018/C 231/025742015CJC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805022211Case C-574/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Varese — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Mauro Scialdone (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 4(3) TEU — Article 325(1) TFEU — Directive 2006/112/EC — PFI Convention — Penalties — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Failure to pay, within the time limit prescribed by law, the VAT resulting from an annual tax return — National legislation imposing a custodial sentence only where the amount of unpaid VAT exceeds a certain criminalisation threshold — National legislation imposing a lower criminalisation threshold for a failure to pay withholding income tax)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN210120180502EN00022121Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Varese — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Mauro Scialdone
   (Case C-574/15) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 4(3) TEU — Article 325(1) TFEU — Directive 2006/112/EC — PFI Convention — Penalties — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Failure to pay, within the time limit prescribed by law, the VAT resulting from an annual tax return — National legislation imposing a custodial sentence only where the amount of unpaid VAT exceeds a certain criminalisation threshold — National legislation imposing a lower criminalisation threshold for a failure to pay withholding income tax)’2018/C 231/02Language of the case: Italian
      Referring court

   Tribunale di Varese

      Party in the main proceedings

   Mauro Scialdone

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, and Article 325(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that failure to pay, within the time limit prescribed by law, the value added tax (VAT) resulting from the annual tax return for a given financial year constitutes a criminal offence punishable by a custodial sentence only when the amount of unpaid VAT exceeds a criminalisation threshold of EUR 250000, whereas a criminalisation threshold of EUR 150000 is laid down for the offence of failing to pay withholding income tax.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


201806150521955202018/C 231/512762018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180427404011Case T-276/18: Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Julius-K9 v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (K9 UNIT)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN4010120180427EN0051401401Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Julius-K9 v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (K9 UNIT)
   (Case T-276/18)2018/C 231/51Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Julius-K9 Zrt (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary) (represented by: G. Jambrik, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark K9 UNIT — Application for registration No 14 590 831

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2018 in Case R 1432/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


201806150611955222018/C 231/522772018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504404122Case T-277/18: Action brought on 4 May 2018 — Zitro IP v EUIPO (PICK & WIN MULTISLOT)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN4020120180504EN0052402412Action brought on 4 May 2018 — Zitro IP v EUIPO (PICK & WIN MULTISLOT)
   (Case T-277/18)2018/C 231/52Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark PICK & WIN MULTISLOT — Application for registration No 16 071 946

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 in Case R 978/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


201806150831955152018/C 231/372412018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180418293022Case T-241/18: Action brought on 18 April 2018 — Bruno v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN2920120180418EN0037292302Action brought on 18 April 2018 — Bruno v Commission
   (Case T-241/18)2018/C 231/37Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Bruno (Woluwé-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Declare and rule that

            —

            the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts (AECC) of 4 July 2017 is annulled;

            —

            in so far as necessary, the express decision rejecting the claim dated 18 January 2018 is annulled;

            —

            the defendant shall pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the European Commission in the application of Article 11(1) and 12(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations in so far as, by its decision, the Commission rejected the applicant’s application for grant of the leaving allowance provided for in Article 12(2) of that annex by, on the contrary, restricting him to application of article 11(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, which, however, does not apply to his situation.

            2.

            Second plea in law, raising a plea of illegality, in so far as the abovementioned provisions of the Staff Regulations infringe the principle of equal treatment and of non-discrimination because of a legislative lacuna.


201806150341954862018/C 231/043312016CJC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805024521Joined Cases C-331/16 and C-366/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Middelburg, Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Netherlands, Belgium) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (C-331/16), H.F v Belgische Staat (C-366/16). (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Second subparagraph of Article 27(2) — Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health — Expulsion on grounds of public policy or public security — Conduct representing a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society — Person whose asylum application has been refused for reasons within the scope of Article 1F of the Geneva Convention or Article 12(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 28(1) — Article 28(3)(a) — Protection against expulsion — Residence in the host Member State for the previous ten years — Imperative grounds of public security — Meaning)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN410120180502EN00044152Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Middelburg, Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Netherlands, Belgium) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (C-331/16), H.F v Belgische Staat (C-366/16).
   (Joined Cases C-331/16 and C-366/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Second subparagraph of Article 27(2) — Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health — Expulsion on grounds of public policy or public security — Conduct representing a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society — Person whose asylum application has been refused for reasons within the scope of Article 1F of the Geneva Convention or Article 12(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 28(1) — Article 28(3)(a) — Protection against expulsion — Residence in the host Member State for the previous ten years — Imperative grounds of public security — Meaning)’2018/C 231/04Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Middelburg, Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: K. (C-331/16), H.F. (C-366/16)

      Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (C-331/16), Belgische Staat (C-366/16).

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a European Union citizen or a third-country national family member of such a citizen, who applies for a right of residence in the territory of a Member State, has been the subject, in the past, of a decision excluding him from refugee status under Article 1F of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 and supplemented by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, concluded in New York on 31 January 1967, or Article 12(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, does not enable the competent authorities of that Member State to consider automatically that the mere presence of that individual in its territory constitutes, whether or not there is any risk of re-offending, a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, capable of justifying the adoption of measures on grounds of public policy or public security.
            The finding that there is such a threat must be based on an assessment, by the competent authorities of the host Member State, of the personal conduct of the individual concerned, taking into consideration the findings of fact in the decision to exclude that individual from refugee status and the factors on which that decision is based, particularly the nature and gravity of the crimes or acts that he is alleged to have committed, the degree of his individual involvement in them, whether there are any grounds for excluding criminal liability, and whether or not he has been convicted. That overall assessment must also take account of the time that has elapsed since the date when the crimes or acts were allegedly committed and the subsequent conduct of that individual, particularly in relation to whether that conduct reveals the persistence in him of a disposition hostile to the fundamental values enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 TEU, capable of disturbing the peace of mind and physical security of the population. The mere fact that the past conduct of that individual took place in a specific historical and social context in his country of origin, which is not liable to recur in the host Member State, does not preclude such a finding.
            In accordance with the principle of proportionality, the competent authorities of the host Member State must, in addition, weigh the protection of the fundamental interest of society at issue, on the one hand, against the interests of the person concerned in the exercise of his right to freedom of movement and residence as a Union citizen and in his right to respect for private and family life.

            2.

            Article 28(1) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the measures envisaged entail the expulsion of the individual concerned from the host Member State, that State must take account of, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the alleged conduct of the individual concerned, the duration and, when appropriate, the legality of his residence in that Member State, the period of time that has elapsed since that conduct, the individual’s behaviour during that period, the extent to which he currently poses a danger to society, and the solidity of social, cultural and family links with that Member State.
            Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a European Union citizen who does not have a right of permanent residence in the host Member State, within the meaning of Article 16 and Article 28(2) of that directive.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.

      OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


201806150801955062018/C 231/532792018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180430414221Case T-279/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Alliance Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — AxiCorp (AXICORP ALLIANCE)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN4110120180430EN0053411422Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Alliance Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — AxiCorp (AXICORP ALLIANCE)
   (Case T-279/18)2018/C 231/53Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Alliance Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Wiltshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AxiCorp GmbH (Friedrichsdorf/Ts, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark AXICORP ALLIANCE — International registration designating the European Union No 1 072 913

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2018 in Case R 1473/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            in the alternative, the contested decision of the Fifth Board be altered to state that the opposition should be remitted to the Opposition Division for it to reconsider the opposition pursuant to Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) in addition to reconsidering the opposition pursuant to Article 8(4);

            —

            order EUIPO to pay to the Applicant, the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this Application and the costs before the Board. In the alternative, if the other party before the Board intervenes, then the Defendant and Intervener jointly and severally pay to the Applicant, the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this Application and the costs before the Board.

      Pleas in law

            —

            Infringement of article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

            —

            The Board wrongly constructed the specifications of the earlier registered marks and, as a consequence, it held that the evidence of use that had been adduced did not show genuine use for the goods included within those specifications.


201806150581955002018/C 231/266752016TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180515222211Case T-675/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark mycard2go — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94, first sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN2210120180515EN0026221221Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go)
   (Case T-675/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark mycard2go — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94, first sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001))’2018/C 231/26Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Wirecard AG (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 (Case R 282/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign mycard2go as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 July 2016 (Case R 282/2016-4);

            2.

            Dismisses the remainder of the application;

            3.

            Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.


201806290401986262018/C 249/383042017TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180529313111Case T-304/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (5000) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 5000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN3110120180529EN0038311311Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (5000)
   (Case T-304/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 5000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)’2018/C 249/38Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China) (represented by: S. Fröhlich and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 (Case R 655/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools and Sata.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Sata GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


201806290231986792018/C 249/192872018CJC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180309131312Case C-287/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Fusignano Due Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN1320120180309EN0019132131Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Fusignano Due Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
   (Case C-287/18)2018/C 249/19Language of the case: Italian
      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Fusignano Due Srl

      Respondent: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Question referred

   Should Article 3(3)(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC (
         1
      ) be interpreted — including in view of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the overall system of rules introduced by that directive to incentivise the production of energy from renewable sources — as rendering incompatible with EU law national legislation which allows the Italian Government, in subsequent implementing decrees, to reduce or even remove incentives introduced earlier?
   (
         1
      )	Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).


201806290451986282018/C 249/571992017TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180531454513Case T-199/17: Order of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — QD v EUIPO
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN4530120180531EN0057453451Order of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — QD v EUIPO
   (Case T-199/17) (
         1
      )2018/C 249/57Language of the case: EnglishThe President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


201806290591986512018/C 249/329002016TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180601262721Case T-900/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2018 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dayaday — Earlier national figurative marks DAYADAY and dayaday — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Reputation — Advantage unfairly taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN2610120180601EN0032261272Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2018 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday)
   (Case T-900/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dayaday — Earlier national figurative marks DAYADAY and dayaday — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Reputation — Advantage unfairly taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)’2018/C 249/32Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Casual Dreams, SLU (Manresa, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially by S. Palmero Cabezas, and subsequently by J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Miguel Ángel López Fernández (Fuensalida, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2016 (Case R 375/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Casual Dreams and Mr López Fernández.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 October 2016 (Case R 375/2016-2);

            2.

            Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Casual Dreams, SLU, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.


201807130152003562018/C 268/076712016CJC26820180730EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201806076611Case C-671/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL and Others v Brussels Capital Region (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Article 2(a) — Concept of ‘plans and programmes’ — Article 3 — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Regional town planning regulations relating to the European Quarter, Brussels (Belgium))
 ---documentbreak--- C2682018EN610120180607EN00076161Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL and Others v Brussels Capital Region
   (Case C-671/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Article 2(a) — Concept of ‘plans and programmes’ — Article 3 — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Regional town planning regulations relating to the European Quarter, Brussels (Belgium))’2018/C 268/07Language of the case: French
      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Groupe d’animation du quartier européen de la ville de Bruxelles ASBL, Association du quartier Léopold ASBL, Brusselse Raad voor het Leefmilieu ASBL, Pierre Picard, David Weytsman

      Defendant: Brussels Capital Region

      Operative part of the judgment

   On a proper construction of Article 2(a), Article 3(1), and Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, regional town planning regulations, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, laying down certain requirements for the completion of building projects, fall under the definition of ‘plans and programmes’ which are likely to have significant environmental effects within the meaning of that directive and must, consequently, be subjected to an environmental impact assessment.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.


201807270322024652018/C 285/133112017CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170529111111Case C-311/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Jeannine Wieczarkowiecz v TUIfly GmbH
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN1110120170529EN0013111111Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Jeannine Wieczarkowiecz v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-311/17)2018/C 285/13Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jeannine Wieczarkowiecz

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
   By decision of the Court of Justice of 8 May 2018 the case was removed from the Court’s register.


title: Case C-458/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 July 2018 — GVC Services (Bulgaria) EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/8

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 July 2018 — GVC Services (Bulgaria) EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia
      (Case C-458/18)
      (2018/C 341/09)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: GVC Services (Bulgaria) EOOD

         Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should Article 2(a)(i) of, in conjunction with Annex I, Part A(ab), to, Directive 2011/96/EU (1) be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘companies incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom’ also covers companies incorporated in Gibraltar?

                  2.

                  Should Article 2(a)(iii) of, in conjunction with Annex I, Part B, to, Directive 2011/96/EU be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘corporation tax in the United Kingdom’ also covers the corporation tax that has to be paid in Gibraltar?

         (1)  Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 2011 L 345, p. 8).


title: Case T-273/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Quadri di Cardano v Commission (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Ten-year reference period — Nationality of the State of employment — Residence in the State of employment — Duties in an international organisation — Temporary employment contract)

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/14

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Quadri di Cardano v Commission
      (Case T-273/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Members of the contract staff — Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Ten-year reference period - Nationality of the State of employment - Residence in the State of employment - Duties in an international organisation - Temporary employment contract))
      (2018/C 341/25)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Alessandro Quadri di Cardano (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, then N. de Montigny, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and M. Mensi initially, then T. Bohr and L. Radu Bouyon, Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision dated 19 July 2016 of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO), in so far as it refuses to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance on his entry into the service of INEA.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Alessandro Quadri di Cardano to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


title: Case C-461/18 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2018 by Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 3 May 2018 in Case T-431/12: Distillerie Bonollo and Others v Council of the European Union

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/8

      Appeal brought on 13 July 2018 by Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 3 May 2018 in Case T-431/12: Distillerie Bonollo and Others v Council of the European Union
      (Case C-461/18 P)
      (2018/C 341/10)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, P. Billiet, lawyers)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA, Caviro Distillerie Srl, Comercial Química Sarasa, SL, Council of the European Union, European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 May 2018 in Case T-431/12 in its entirety; and

                  —

                  order the applicatns before the General Court to pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-431/12.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The appellant advances a single plea in support of the appeal. Accordingly, the contested judgment is vitiated by a manifest error in the application of the law in determining that Article 11(9) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, pursuant to which Regulation 626/2012 (2) was adopted, ‘the Basic Regulation’) does not allow the EU Institutions to construct the normal value of the product concerned in dumping margin calculations during a partial interim antidumping review, if, during the original antidumping investigation, the EU Institutions had used instead actual domestic sales for this purpose.

                  1.

                  The appellant submits, first, that constructing normal value does not constitute a different methodology to establishing normal value by reference to actual domestic sales as they both aim at best establishing normal value taking into account the specific characteristic of each case; and cost/price data evolving over time. Indeed, Articles 2(1)-2(6) of the Basic Regulation provide for several circumstances justifying the use of constructed normal value as opposed to using actual domestic sales for dumping margin calculation purposes on a case-by-case basis. Limiting the discretion of EU Institutions to construct normal value in a partial interim review, where they had used actual domestic sales for the same purpose in earlier investigations, deprives the EU Institutions of the ability to have recourse to various alternatives set out in Article 2 of the Basic Regulation. Given the substantial cost differences between tartaric acid produced naturally or synthetically, constructing analogue normal value in Argentina in Regulation 626/2012 best reflected the fact that the Argentinian analogue producer manufactured tartaric acid using the natural method which is materially more expensive than the synthetic method used by the appellant.

                  2.

                  Second, the appellant submits in support of its plea that, in the original antidumping investigation, two categories of exporters were identified: co-operating exporters such as the appellant that were granted market economy treatment (‘MET’) pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the Basic Regulation; and non-co-operating producers that were not granted MET and with regard to which the EU Instituions appled the ‘best information available’ methodology pursuant to Article 18 of the Basic Regulation. During the partial interim review that resulted in the adoption of Regulation 626/2012, the cooperating producers such as the appellant were denied MET by the EU Institutions and their normal value was established pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation by reference to Argentina, the analogue country chosen by the Commission. This category of exporters was not present during the original investigation. Therefore, even if Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation were to be construed as preventing the EU Institutions from using constructed normal values as opposed to actual domestic sales in an interim partial review, quod non, it would still not prevent the EU Institutions from using constructed normal value with regard to a new class of exporters, notable cooperating but not grated MET, which emerged for the first time at the interim partial review.

                  3.

                  Finally, several findings of the contested judgment run counter to established EU and WTO case law regarding the establishment of normal value as well as ensuring fair price comparisons and respecting the exporters’ rights of defense.

         (1)  OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51.

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


title: Case C-618/17: Order of the President of the Court of 22 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Limoges — France) — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v Roger Ducloux, Marie Josée Ducloux

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/11

      Order of the President of the Court of 22 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Limoges — France) — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v Roger Ducloux, Marie Josée Ducloux
      (Case C-618/17) (1)

      (2018/C 341/17)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case C-439/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 2 July 2018 — OH v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

text:
               15.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/5

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 2 July 2018 — OH v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria
      (Case C-439/18)
      (2018/C 373/05)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: OH

         Respondent: Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

         Question referred

      Are a provision in a collective agreement and an employer’s practice, pursuant to which, for the purposes of remuneration and promotion, the length of service of a part-time female employee whose working hours are ‘distributed vertically’ over the whole year is to be calculated solely on the basis of time actually worked, contrary to Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work [annexed to] Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997, (1) and to Articles 2(1)(b) and 14(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)? (2)

         (1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

         (2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).


title: Case T-502/18: Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — IRF (MediWell)

text:
               15.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/15

      Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — IRF (MediWell)
      (Case T-502/18)
      (2018/C 373/17)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M-P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IRF s. r. o. (Bratislava, Slovakia).

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark MediWell — Application for registration No 15 078 645

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2018 in Case R 6/2018-5.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Opposition Division;

                  —

                  refuse the mark applied for;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.