title: Case T-316/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — PKK v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures imposed on the PKK with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Powers of the Council — Whether an authority of a third State can be classified as a competent authority within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Reference to terrorist acts — Judicial review — Obligation to state reasons — Plea of illegality)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — PKK v Council
      (Case T-316/14) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures imposed on the PKK with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Powers of the Council - Whether an authority of a third State can be classified as a competent authority within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Reference to terrorist acts - Judicial review - Obligation to state reasons - Plea of illegality))
      (2019/C 16/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) (represented by: A. van Eik, T. Buruma and M. Wijngaarden, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by F. Naert and G. Étienne, and subsequently by F. Naert and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially by C. Brodie and V. Kaye, subsequently by C. Brodie and S. Brandon, subsequently by C. Brodie, C. Crane and R. Fadoju, subsequently by C. Brodie, R. Fadoju and P. Nevill, and then by R. Fadoju, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: initially by F. Castillo de la Torre and D. Gauci, subsequently by D. Gauci, J. Norris-Usher and T. Ramopoulos, and then by J. Norris-Usher, T. Ramopoulos and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking, initially, the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 of 10 February 2014 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 714/2013 (OJ 2014 L 40, p. 9), in so far as that act concerns the applicant, and, subsequently, the annulment of other consequential acts, in so far as they concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 of 10 February 2014 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 714/2013, in so far as it concerns the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

                  2.

                  Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 790/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation No 125/2014, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

                  3.

                  Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513 of 26 March 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation No 790/2014, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

                  4.

                  Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/521 of 26 March 2015, updating and amending the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Decision 2014/483/CFSP, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

                  5.

                  Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1325 of 31 July 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation 2015/513, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

                  6.

                  Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1334 of 31 July 2015, updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Decision 2015/521, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

                  7.

                  Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2425 of 21 December 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation 2015/1325, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

                  8.

                  Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1127 of 12 July 2016 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation 2015/2425, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

                  9.

                  Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/150 of 27 January 2017 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation No 2016/1127, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

                  10.

                  Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420 of 4 August 2017 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation 2017/150, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

                  11.

                  Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1426 of 4 August 2017 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2017/154, in so far as it concerns the applicant.

                  12.

                  For the remainder, dismisses the request that Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism be declared to be inapplicable to the PKK.

                  13.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the PKK.

                  14.

                  Orders the European Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case T-647/18: Action brought on 29 October 2018 — ZQ v Commission

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/54

      Action brought on 29 October 2018 — ZQ v Commission
      (Case T-647/18)
      (2019/C 16/65)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: ZQ (represented by: C. Cortese, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decisions and, in particular:

                              (a)

                              annul the decision of the appointing authority of 15 December 2017, registered in ARES on 18 December 2017, HR.E.2/AS/Ares (2017), concerning ‘Request for assistance D/374/17’ and rejecting that request for assistance;

                              (b)

                              annul, so far as necessary, the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant, N. R/187/18, HR.E.2/Ares (2018), dated 19 July 2018;

                              (c)

                              order the Commission to pay compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the multiple illegal acts indicated in the contested decision or to which it is closely connected, in the amount of EUR 1 000 000;

            in addition,

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In the present action the applicant challenges the Commission’s rejection of his request for assistance regarding the harassment which he claims to have suffered on account of his sexual orientation.
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

                              —

                              The applicant claims, in this regard, that, from a general point of view, the manifest error of assessment is clear in the predetermined view, expressed in that decision, that the applicant’s assertions are not credible because they relate to a very long period of time during which the applicant did not present any formal complaints.

                              —

                              The existence of a predetermined view is, moreover, the only explanation for the fact that the appointing authority excluded from the scope of the contested decision a series of reported incidents in respect of which no assessment was carried out.

                              —

                              The applicant’s allegations concerning the harassment allegedly suffered were hastily downgraded to normal instances of poor organisation or normal conflict in the workplace.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of law.
                  The applicant claims, in this regard:

                              (a)

                              the application of an incorrect definition of harassment, requiring malevolent intent (animus nocendi) on the part of the offending party;

                              (b)

                              the application of a standard of proof not corresponding to that required by the applicable law (prima facie evidence), but rather requiring proof beyond all reasonable doubt establishing the facts and their unambiguous legal classification;

                              (c)

                              the application of a manifestly incorrect standard of proof as regards the assessment of the credibility of the complaints in relation to the time that has passed;

                              (d)

                              infringement of the obligation to carry out an investigation automatically in cases where there are credible allegations.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons or inadequacy of the statement of reasons.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in this regard that, even where account is taken of the integration of the statement of reasons in the decision rejecting the complaint, the contested decision lacks, to a great extent, an adequate statement of reasons.

            As regards the head of claim seeking compensation for damage, the applicant submits that all of the conditions imposed by the case-law are satisfied in the present case.


title: Case C-215/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor d.d. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Re-use of public sector information — Directive 2003/98/EC — Article 1(2)(c), third indent — Prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms — Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Information to be published by credit institutions and investment firms — Article 432(2) — Exceptions to public disclosure requirements — Information considered commercially sensitive or confidential — Applicability — Credit institutions predominantly owned by the State — National legislation laying down the public nature of certain commercial information held by those institutions)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/10

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor d.d. v Republika Slovenija
      (Case C-215/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Re-use of public sector information - Directive 2003/98/EC - Article 1(2)(c), third indent - Prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms - Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Information to be published by credit institutions and investment firms - Article 432(2) - Exceptions to public disclosure requirements - Information considered commercially sensitive or confidential - Applicability - Credit institutions predominantly owned by the State - National legislation laying down the public nature of certain commercial information held by those institutions))
      (2019/C 16/11)
      Language of the case: Slovene

         Referring court

      Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor d.d.

         Respondent: Republika Slovenija

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 1(2)(c), third indent, of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, and Article 432(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a bank which has been under the dominant influence of a body governed by public law to disclose information on contracts provided for consultancy and legal services, copyright contracts and other services of an intellectual nature which it concluded during the period in which it was under that dominant influence, with no exceptions on the ground of the protection of that bank’s business secrets, and, accordingly, as not precluding such national legislation.

         (1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.


title: Case T-650/18: Action brought on 29 October 2018 — Reaktor Group v EUIPO (REAKTOR)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/56

      Action brought on 29 October 2018 — Reaktor Group v EUIPO (REAKTOR)
      (Case T-650/18)
      (2019/C 16/67)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Parties

         Applicant: Reaktor Group Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the word mark REAKTOR as a European Union trade mark — Application for registration No 13 752 522

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 August 2018 in Case R 2626/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 August 2018 in Case R 2626/2017-2 in so far as the Second Board of Appeal, by the contested decision, dismissed EU trade mark application 13752522 REAKTOR (‘the REAKTOR mark’) for certain goods and services applied for in classes 9, 41 and 42 on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation; and allow the application concerning the REAKTOR mark to be published and registered in its entirety for all the goods and services applied for;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the applicant the costs incurred in respect of the appeal before the General Court of the European Union and the Board of Appeal;

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-502/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — C&D Foods Acquisition ApS v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Proposed sale of shares in a sub-subsidiary — Expenditure associated with the provision of services acquired for the purposes of that sale — Sale not carried out — Request for a deduction of input tax — Scope of VAT)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/23

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — C&D Foods Acquisition ApS v Skatteministeriet
      (Case C-502/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Proposed sale of shares in a sub-subsidiary - Expenditure associated with the provision of services acquired for the purposes of that sale - Sale not carried out - Request for a deduction of input tax - Scope of VAT))
      (2019/C 16/28)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Vestre Landsret

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: C&D Foods Acquisition ApS

         Defendant: Skatteministeriet

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 2, 9 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a share disposal transaction, envisaged but not carried out, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for which the direct and exclusive reason does not lie in the taxable economic activity of the company concerned, or which does not constitute the direct, permanent and necessary extension of that economic activity, does not come within the scope of value added tax.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2016.


title: Case T-665/18: Action brought on 12 November 2018 — Soundio v EUIPO — E-Plus Mobilfunk (Vibble)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/57

      Action brought on 12 November 2018 — Soundio v EUIPO — E-Plus Mobilfunk (Vibble)
      (Case T-665/18)
      (2019/C 16/68)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Soundio A/S (Drammen, Norway) (represented by: N. Köster and J. Albers, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: E-Plus Mobilfunk GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark Vibble — International registration designating the European Union No 1 290 194

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2018 in Case R 721/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-238/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Renerga’ v AB ‘Energijos skirstymo operatorius’, AB ‘Lietuvos energijos gamyba’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 3(2), (6) and (15) and Article 36(f) — Internal market in electricity — Hypothetical nature of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/10

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Renerga’ v AB ‘Energijos skirstymo operatorius’, AB ‘Lietuvos energijos gamyba’
      (Case C-238/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 3(2), (6) and (15) and Article 36(f) - Internal market in electricity - Hypothetical nature of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling))
      (2019/C 16/12)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: UAB ‘Renerga’

         Defendants: AB ‘Energijos skirstymo operatorius’, AB ‘Lietuvos energijos gamyba’

         Third parties: UAB ‘BALTPOOL’, Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybė, Achema AB, Achemos Grupė UAB

         Operative part of the judgment

      The request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas (District Court, City of Vilnius, Lithuania), made by decision of 11 April 2017, is inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


title: Case T-667/18: Action brought on 9 November 2018 — Pinto Teixeira v EEAS

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/58

      Action brought on 9 November 2018 — Pinto Teixeira v EEAS
      (Case T-667/18)
      (2019/C 16/69)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: José Manuel Pinto Teixeira (Oeiras, Portugal) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European External Action Service

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of 21 February 2018 by which the Appointing Authority refused to authorise him to engage in an outside activity under Article 16 of the Staff Regulations;

                  —

                  order the EEAS to pay the costs and to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 for the non-material damage suffered.

         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 infringement of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the contested decision was adopted after the expiry of the period of 30 working days from the reception of his declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment which render the contested decision unlawful, since the proposed activity is manifestly neither connected to the activity which he exercised during the last three years of service nor incompatible with the interests of the EEAS.


title: Case C-247/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — proceedings relating to the extradition of Denis Raugevicius (Reference for a preliminary ruling — European Union Citizenship — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Request to a Member State by a third country seeking extradition of an EU citizen who is a national of another Member State and who has exercised his right to free movement in the first Member State — Request made for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence and not for the purpose of prosecution — Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals — Restriction on free movement — Justification based on the prevention of impunity — Proportionality)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/11

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — proceedings relating to the extradition of Denis Raugevicius
      (Case C-247/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - European Union Citizenship - Articles 18 and 21 TFEU - Request to a Member State by a third country seeking extradition of an EU citizen who is a national of another Member State and who has exercised his right to free movement in the first Member State - Request made for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence and not for the purpose of prosecution - Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals - Restriction on free movement - Justification based on the prevention of impunity - Proportionality))
      (2019/C 16/13)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein oikeus

         Party to the main proceedings

      Denis Raugevicius

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 18 and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where an extradition request has been made by a third country for an EU citizen who has exercised his right to free movement, not for the purpose of prosecution, but for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence, the requested Member State, whose national law prohibits the extradition of its own nationals out of the European Union for the purpose of enforcing a sentence and makes provision for the possibility that such a sentence pronounced abroad may be served on its territory, is required to ensure that that EU citizen, provided that he resides permanently in its territory, receives the same treatment as that accorded to its own nationals in relation to extradition.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case T-671/18: Action brought on 15 November 2018 — ZU v Commission

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/58

      Action brought on 15 November 2018 — ZU v Commission
      (Case T-671/18)
      (2019/C 16/70)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Head of the Career Management & Mobility Unit, in Directorate HR.B of Directorate-General Human Resources (DG HR) of the Commission, adopted on 12 October 2018, transferring the applicant back to DG OLAF;

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Head of the Account Management Centre 4 Unit, in Directorate HR.AMC of DG HR of the Commission, adopted on 29 October 2018, provisionally setting the date of his assignment at 1 December 2018;

                  —

                  annul, together with the above, in so far as necessary, the decision of the appointing authority, yet to be adopted, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging insufficient transparency of the transfer procedure, breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and failure to state grounds, infringement of the applicant’s right to defence from the enforced transfer, and breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and of the right to be heard.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the interest of the service, and breach of the principle of good administration.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging omission of crucial elements against the immediate transfer of the applicant to OLAF, breach of the principle of good administration, and disregard for the protection of whistle-blowers under Article 22a of the Staff Regulations.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.


title: Case C-257/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — C, A v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Directive 2003/86/EC — Right to family reunification — Article 15 — Refusal to grant an autonomous residence permit — National legislation providing for a requirement to pass a civic integration examination)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/12

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — C, A v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
      (Case C-257/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction of the Court - Directive 2003/86/EC - Right to family reunification - Article 15 - Refusal to grant an autonomous residence permit - National legislation providing for a requirement to pass a civic integration examination))
      (2019/C 16/14)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Raad van State

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: C, A

         Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The Court of Justice has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 15 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in situations such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on the grant of an autonomous residence permit to a third country national, who is a family member of an EU citizen who has not exercised his right of free movement, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such situations under national law.

                  2.

                  Article 15(1) and (4) of Directive 2003/86 does not preclude national legislation which permits an application for an autonomous residence permit, lodged by a third country national who has resided over five years in a Member State by virtue of family reunification, to be rejected on the ground that he has not shown that he has passed a civic integration test on the language and society of that Member State provided that the detailed rules for the requirement to pass that examination do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of facilitating the integration of those third country nationals.

                  3.

                  Article 15(1) and (4) of Directive 2003/86 does not preclude national legislation which provides that an autonomous residence permit cannot be issued earlier than the date on which it was applied for.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case T-271/10 OST: Order of the General Court of 17 September 2018 — H v Council (Procedure — Failure to adjudicate on costs)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/45

      Order of the General Court of 17 September 2018 — H v Council
      (Case T-271/10 OST) (1)

      ((Procedure - Failure to adjudicate on costs))
      (2019/C 16/55)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: H (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application to remedy a failure to adjudicate on costs in the judgment of 11 April 2018, H v Council (T-271/10 RENV, EU:T:2018:180).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  Paragraph 174 of the judgment of 11 April 2018, H v Council (T-271/10 RENV, EU:T:2018:180), is amended as follows:
                  ‘Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Nevertheless, in accordance with Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 219 of those rules, a decision as to all the costs relating to the appeal proceedings and the proceedings initiated before the General Court is to be given in the judgment which closes the proceedings. Furthermore, Article 134(3) of those rules provides that the parties are to bear their own costs where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads. However, if it appears justified in the circumstances of the case, the General Court may order that one party, in addition to bearing his own costs, pay a proportion of the costs of the other party. In the circumstances of the present case, it is appropriate to order the Council to bear the costs incurred by the applicant and itself up to the time of delivery of the judgment on appeal, only in so far as they relate to the question of the admissibility of the action, and to order the applicant to bear all the other costs incurred by the Council and herself both before and after that judgment was delivered.’

                  2.

                  Paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of 11 April 2018, H v Council (T-271/10 RENV, EU:T:2018:180), is amended as follows:
                  ‘The Council shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by H up to the time of delivery of the judgment of 19 July 2016, H v Council and Commission(C-455/14 P, EU:C:2016:569), only in so far as they relate to the question of the admissibility of the action. H shall bear all the other costs incurred by the Council and herself both before and after that judgment was delivered.’

                  3.

                  H and the Council shall bear their own costs in relation to the present application.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case T-621/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 October 2018 — Taminco v EFSA (Application for interim measures — Plant protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Publication of the conclusion of the examination carried out by EFSA on the review of the approval of the active substance thiram — Claim for confidential treatment of certain sections — Refusal to grant confidentiality — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/46

      Order of the President of the General Court of 12 October 2018 — Taminco v EFSA
      (Case T-621/17 R)
      ((Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Publication of the conclusion of the examination carried out by EFSA on the review of the approval of the active substance thiram - Claim for confidential treatment of certain sections - Refusal to grant confidentiality - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency))
      (2019/C 16/56)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Taminco BVBA (Ghent, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents, and by R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Koleva and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of the decision of EFSA of 18 July 2017 rejecting the claims for confidential treatment made in the context of the application for the renewal of the approval of the active substance thiram.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The order of 19 September 2017 delivered in Case T-621/17 R is cancelled.

                  3.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-347/18 R II: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission (Interim relief — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Biocidal products — Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) — Approval refused — Application for interim measures — New application — No new facts — Inadmissibility)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/72

      Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission
      (Case T-347/18 R II)
      ((Interim relief - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Biocidal products - Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) - Approval refused - Application for interim measures - New application - No new facts - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 44/95)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Laboratoire Pareva (St. Martin de Crau, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and S. Engelbert, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/613 of 20 April 2018 approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 (OJ 2018 L 102, p. 1), and, secondly, the adoption of any other appropriate interim measure.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-422/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Skarpa Travel sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of tax legislation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Chargeable event — Special scheme for travel agents — Articles 65 and 308 — Margin obtained by a travel agent — Determination of the margin — Payments on account made before the supply of travel services by the travel agent — Actual cost borne by the travel agent)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/12

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Skarpa Travel sp. z o.o.
      (Case C-422/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of tax legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Chargeable event - Special scheme for travel agents - Articles 65 and 308 - Margin obtained by a travel agent - Determination of the margin - Payments on account made before the supply of travel services by the travel agent - Actual cost borne by the travel agent))
      (2019/C 65/14)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

         Defendant: Skarpa Travel sp. z o.o.

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Articles 65 and 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that, when a travel agent, subject to the special scheme laid down in Articles 306 to 310 of that directive, receives a payment on account for tourist services which it will provide to the traveller, the value added tax (VAT) is chargeable, in accordance with that Article 65, on receipt of that payment on account, provided that, at that time, the tourist services to be supplied are precisely designated.

                  2.

                  Article 308 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, must be interpreted as meaning that the margin of the travel agent, and, consequently, its taxable amount, corresponds to the difference between the total amount, exclusive of value added tax (VAT), to be paid by the traveller and the actual input cost incurred by the travel agent in respect of supplies of goods and services provided by other taxable persons, in so far as those transactions are for the direct benefit of the traveller. When the amount of the payment on account corresponds to the total price of the tourist service or to a significant part of that price, and the travel agent has not yet incurred any actual cost, or has incurred only a limited part of the individual total cost of that service, or even when the individual actual cost of the trip incurred by the travel agent cannot be determined at the time when the payment on account is made, the profit margin can be determined on the basis of an estimate of the total actual cost which it will ultimately have to incur. For the purpose of such an estimate, the travel agent must take into account, where relevant, the costs which it has already actually incurred at the time of receipt of the payment on account. For the purpose of the calculation of the margin, the estimated total actual cost is deducted from the total price of the trip and the taxable amount for VAT to be paid at the time of receipt of the payment on account is obtained by multiplying the amount of that payment on account by the percentage corresponding to the part of the total cost of the trip that the estimated profit margin, thus determined, represents.

         (1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.


title: Case T-655/17: Action brought on 25 September 2017 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ansell (ZARA TANZANIA ADVENTURES)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/47

         Action brought on 25 September 2017 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ansell (ZARA TANZANIA ADVENTURES)
   (Case T-655/17)
   (2017/C 402/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zainab Ansell (Moshi, Tanzania) and Roger Ansell (Moshi)

      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: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ZARA TANZANIA ADVENTURES’ — Application for registration No 8 320 591

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 July 2017 in Joined Cases R 2330/2011-2 and R 2369/2011-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partially annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO dated 5 July 2017, in joined Cases R 2330/2011-2 and R 2369/2011-2, in particular regarding the allowing of the EUTM application No. 8320591 to proceed to registration for the challenged services in Classes 39 and 43;

               —

               order that the of the appeal action be borne by the defendant (EUIPO) and the intervener, and those incurred in proceedings before the EUIPO’s Opposition Division and the Second Board of Appeal by the intervener.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-434/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2017 — Sensi Vigne & Vini v EUIPO — El Grifo (CONTADO DEL GRIFO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark CONTADO DEL GRIFO — Earlier EU figurative mark EL GRIFO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2017 — Sensi Vigne & Vini v EUIPO — El Grifo (CONTADO DEL GRIFO)
   (Case T-434/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CONTADO DEL GRIFO - Earlier EU figurative mark EL GRIFO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2017/C 402/38)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Sensi Vigne & Vini Srl (Lamporecchio, Italy) (represented by: initially by F. Caricato, and subsequently by M. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: El Grifo, SA (San Bartolomé, Lanzarote, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2016 (Case R 2218/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between El Grifo and Sensi Vigne & Vini.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sensi Vigne & Vini Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.


title: Case T-878/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2017 — Karelia v EUIPO (KARELIA) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark ‘KARELIA’ — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive 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)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2017 — Karelia v EUIPO (KARELIA)
   (Case T-878/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark ‘KARELIA’ - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive 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))
   (2017/C 402/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ino Karelia (Kalamata, Greece) (represented by: M. Karpathakis, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 (Case R 1562/2015-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign ‘KARELIA’ as an EU trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Ino Karelia to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-499/17 (OJ C 330, 2.10.2017)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/56

         Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-499/17
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 330 of 2 October 2017
      )
   (2017/C 402/74)
   The Notice in Case T-499/17 Esfera Capital Agencia de Valores v Commission and SRB should read as follows:

      Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Global Sistematic Investment Sicav v Commission and SRB
      (Case T-499/17)
      (2017/C 330/22)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Global Sistematic Investment Sicav, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Pastor Palomar, F. Arroyo Romero and N. Subuh Falero, lawyers)

         Defendants: Commission and Single Resolution Board

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 addressed to the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) approving a restructuring plan in respect of Banco Popular Español;

                  —

                  Annul European Commission Decision 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 supporting the resolution plan for Banco Popular Español; and

                  —

                  By virtue of the provision in Article 340 TFEU, declare that the SRB and European Commission are non-contractually liable and order them to make good the harm caused to the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to the arguments raised in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía y Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board; T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán y Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board; T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board and T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
      In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission misused its powers in the present case.


201711170421555822017/C 412/357362015TC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20171019252511Case T-736/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO — Sky (SKYLITe) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark skylite — Earlier EU word mark SKY — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/1995 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Regulation No 207/2009)
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN2510120171019EN0035251251Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO — Sky (SKYLITe)
   (Case T-736/15) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark skylite — Earlier EU word mark SKY — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/1995 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Regulation No 207/2009)’2017/C 412/35Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2015 (Case R 2771/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sky and Aldi.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

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

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


201711170481555692017/C 412/526892017TC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20171005363721Case T-689/17: Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Top Cable v SRB
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN3610120171005EN0052361372Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Top Cable v SRB
   (Case T-689/17)2017/C 412/52Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Top Cable, SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

            —

            Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of both its actions and its omissions which deprived the applicant of the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A. bonds and securities it owned;

            —

            Order the Board to pay the applicant EUR 52000000 as damages for the harm suffered (‘the amount due’);

            —

            Increase the amount due with compensatory interest as of 7 June 2017 until delivery of the judgment disposing of the present case;

            —

            Increase the amount due with corresponding default interest as of the date of delivery of judgment up to its payment in full, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points.

            —

            Order the SRB to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-659/17, Vallina Fonseca v SRB.


title: Case T-679/17: Action brought on 3 October 2017 — Grupo Villar Mir v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/48

         Action brought on 3 October 2017 — Grupo Villar Mir v SRB
   (Case T-679/17)
   (2017/C 424/71)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Villar Mir, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Romero Rey and I. Salama Salama, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               On the basis of Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 7 June 2017 adopting a resolution scheme in respect of the Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               In accordance with Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order the Single Resolution Board to pay compensation to the applicant for the harm suffered, in a precise amount which will be determined once the information required by the applicant’s representatives is provided in full and, in particular Deloitte’s provisional report and those prepared by independent experts in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, access to which is hereby requested;

               —

               In accordance with Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case C-523/17 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-180/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/18

         Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-180/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   (Case C-523/17 P)
   (2017/C 424/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guinot

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-180/16, EU:T:2017:451;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

               —

               reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-331/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Hello Media Group v EUIPO — Hola (#hello media group) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark #hello media group — Earlier EU figurative and word marks HELLO! — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Hello Media Group v EUIPO — Hola (#hello media group)
   (Case T-331/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark #hello media group - Earlier EU figurative and word marks HELLO! - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2017/C 424/44)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hello Media Group, SL (Madrid, Spain), authorised to replace Hello Media, SL (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hola, SL (Madrid) (represented by: F. Arroyo Álvarez de Toledo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 (Case R 2012/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Hola and Hello Media.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hello Media Group, SL, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


title: Case C-534/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 11 September 2017 — Ursula Kaufmann, Viktor Schay v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 11 September 2017 — Ursula Kaufmann, Viktor Schay v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-534/17)
   (2017/C 424/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ursula Kaufmann, Viktor Schay

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, (1) read in the light of recital 15, to be interpreted as meaning that an operating air carrier can be exempted from its obligation to pay compensation solely on the basis of such extraordinary circumstances that first occurred on the day of the flight, or can extraordinary circumstances that already occurred on the previous day justify the cancellation or long delay of a flight on the following day?

               2.

               If extraordinary circumstances that already occurred on the previous day can also justify the cancellation or long delay of a flight on the following day, is Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is required, as part of the reasonable measures which it must take in order to avoid extraordinary circumstances, to make adequate provision for such contingencies in advance and, in any event, also adequately provide replacement aircraft at its home base?

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


title: Case T-727/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap.org (REPOWER) (EU trade mark — Decision of a Board of Appeal revoking an earlier decision — Article 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful administrative measure)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap.org (REPOWER)
   (Case T-727/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Decision of a Board of Appeal revoking an earlier decision - Article 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful administrative measure))
   (2018/C 123/23)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. P. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5 (REV)), relating to invalidity proceedings between repowermap.org and Repower.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Repower AG and repowermap.org.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.


title: Case C-703/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 December 2017 — Adelheid Krah v Universität Wien

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 December 2017 — Adelheid Krah v Universität Wien
   (Case C-703/17)
   (2018/C 123/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Adelheid Krah

      Respondent: Universität Wien

      Questions referred

   Question 1:
   Must EU law, in particular Article 45 TFEU, Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding a provision under which previous professionally-relevant periods of service of a member of the teaching staff of the University of Vienna can be recognised only up to a total period of three or four years, irrespective of whether these are periods of service with the University of Vienna or with other national or international universities or similar institutions?
   Question 2:
   Is a system of pay that does not provide for full recognition of previous professionally-relevant periods of service, but at the same time links a higher rate of pay to the duration of employment with the same employer, at variance with the freedom of movement for workers in accordance with Article 45(2) TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of 21 December 2017 in Case E-5/17 — Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v The Icelandic Patent Office (Einkaleyfastofan) (Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Medicinal products — Supplementary protection certificate — Certificate of negative duration)

text:
               12.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/3

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 21 December 2017
   in Case E-5/17
   Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v The Icelandic Patent Office (Einkaleyfastofan)

      (Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Medicinal products — Supplementary protection certificate — Certificate of negative duration)

   (2018/C 130/03)
   In Case E-5/17, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v The Icelandic Patent Office (Einkaleyfastofan) — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Iceland (Hæstiréttur Íslands) concerning the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 21 December 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 permits the issuing of a supplementary protection certificate where the period that has elapsed between the date on which the basic patent application was lodged and the date of the first marketing authorisation in the EEA is less than five years. This result is not affected by the fact that the Joint Committee Decision incorporating Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 into the EEA Agreement has not entered into force.


title: Case T-97/18: Action brought on 16 February 2018 — DeepMind Technologies v EUIPO (STREAMS)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/33

         Action brought on 16 February 2018 — DeepMind Technologies v EUIPO (STREAMS)
   (Case T-97/18)
   (2018/C 134/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: DeepMind Technologies Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. St Quintin, barrister, K. Gilbert and G. Lodge, solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark STREAMS — Application for registration No 15 166 176

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 35/2017-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision because it infringes Article 7 EUTMR, alternatively;

               —

               annul the contested decision on the same basis;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case C-103/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — Jessica Porras Guisado v Bankia SA and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Article 2(a) — Article 10(1) to (3) — Prohibition of dismissal of a worker during the period from the beginning of her pregnancy to the end of her maternity leave — Scope — Exceptional cases not connected with the pregnant worker’s condition — Directive 98/59/EC — Collective redundancies — Article 1(1)(a) — Reasons not related to the individual workers concerned — Pregnant worker dismissed in the context of a collective redundancy procedure — Reasons for the dismissal — Priority for retention of the post of the pregnant worker — Priority for redeployment)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — Jessica Porras Guisado v Bankia SA and Others
   (Case C-103/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Article 2(a) - Article 10(1) to (3) - Prohibition of dismissal of a worker during the period from the beginning of her pregnancy to the end of her maternity leave - Scope - Exceptional cases not connected with the pregnant worker’s condition - Directive 98/59/EC - Collective redundancies - Article 1(1)(a) - Reasons not related to the individual workers concerned - Pregnant worker dismissed in the context of a collective redundancy procedure - Reasons for the dismissal - Priority for retention of the post of the pregnant worker - Priority for redeployment))
   (2018/C 134/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jessica Porras Guisado

      Defendants: Bankia SA, Sección Sindical de Bankia de CCOO, Sección Sindical de Bankia de UGT, Sección Sindical de Bankia de ACCAM, Sección Sindical de Bankia de SATE, Sección Sindical de Bankia de CSICA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

      Joined party: Ministério Fiscal

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 10(1) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which permits the dismissal of a pregnant worker because of a collective redundancy within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies.

               2.

               Article 10(2) of Directive 92/85 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows an employer to dismiss a pregnant worker in the context of a collective redundancy without giving any grounds other than those justifying the collective dismissal, provided that the objective criteria chosen to identify the workers to be made redundant are cited.

               3.

               Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not prohibit, in principle, the dismissal of a worker who is pregnant, has recently given birth or is breastfeeding as a preventative measure, but which provides, by way of reparation, only for that dismissal to be declared void when it is unlawful.

               4.

               Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in the context of a collective redundancy within the meaning of Directive 98/59, makes no provision for pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or who are breastfeeding to be afforded, prior to that dismissal, priority status in relation to being either retained or redeployed, but as not excluding the right of Member States to provide for a higher level of protection for such workers.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.


title: Case C-658/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim (Poland) lodged on 24 November 2017 — WB

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim (Poland) lodged on 24 November 2017 — WB
   (Case C-658/17)
   (2018/C 134/16)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim

      Applicant in the main proceedings

   WB

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 46(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession, (1) in conjunction with Article 39(2) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the issuing of an attestation concerning a decision in a matter of succession, the model for which is set out in Annex 1 to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 of 9 December 2014 establishing the Forms referred to in Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, (2) is permissible also in relation to decisions which declare the status of heir but are not enforceable (even in part)?

               2.

               Must Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that a deed of certification of succession drawn up by a notary in accordance with a non-contentious application by all the parties to the certification proceedings, which produces the legal effects of a final court order declaring succession — such as a deed of certification of succession drawn up by a Polish notary — constitutes a decision within the meaning of that provision?
               and consequently:
               must the first sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that the notary drawing up that kind of deed of certification of succession must be regarded as a court within the meaning of that provision?

               3.

               Must the second sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that notification effected by a Member State pursuant to Article 79 of the regulation has informational value and is not a condition for regarding a legal professional with competence in matters of succession who exercises judicial functions as a court within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 3(2) of the regulation, where he satisfies the conditions arising from the latter provision?

               4.

               In the event that the answer to Question 1, 2 or 3 is in the negative:
               Must Article 3(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that if a national procedural instrument certifying the status of heir, such as the Polish deed of certification of inheritance, is regarded as a decision within the meaning of Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, it cannot be regarded as an authentic instrument?

               5.

               In the event that the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative:
               Must Article 3(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that a deed of certification of succession drawn up by a notary in accordance with a non-contentious application by all the parties to the certification proceedings — such as a deed of certification of succession drawn up by a Polish notary — constitutes an authentic instrument within the meaning of that provision?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 of 9 December 2014 establishing the Forms referred to in Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (OJ 2014 L 359, p. 30).


title: Case C-326/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 — LL v European Parliament (Appeal — Action for annulment — Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Admissibility — Time limit for instituting proceedings — Calculation — Former Member of the European Parliament — Decision relating to the recovery of parliamentary assistance allowances — Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament — Article 72 — Complaint procedure within the European Parliament — Notification of the decision adversely affecting a Member of the European Parliament — Registered letter not collected by its addressee)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 — LL v European Parliament
   (Case C-326/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Action for annulment - Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Admissibility - Time limit for instituting proceedings - Calculation - Former Member of the European Parliament - Decision relating to the recovery of parliamentary assistance allowances - Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament - Article 72 - Complaint procedure within the European Parliament - Notification of the decision adversely affecting a Member of the European Parliament - Registered letter not collected by its addressee))
   (2018/C 134/05)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Appellant: LL (represented by: J. Petrulionis, advokatas)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Toliušis, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 19 April 2016, LL v Parliament (T-615/15, not published, EU:T:2016:432);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a decision on the merits;

               3.

               The costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Case T-764/17: Action brought on 22 November 2017 – Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo v Commission

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/21

         Action brought on 22 November 2017 – Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo v Commission
   (Case T-764/17)
   (2018/C 134/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo (Vigo, Spain) (representative: J. Costas Alonso, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ L 139, 30.4.2004) (corrected version in OJ L 226, 25.6.2004), published in the
                     Official Journal of the European Union L 243, 21 September 2017;

               —

               Annul the corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (OJ L 139, 30.4.2004) (corrected version in OJ L 226, 25.6.2004), published in the
                     Official Journal of the European Union L 243, 21 September 2017.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant contends that:

               1.

               It is surprising that the Commission has implicitly consented to the divergent application of the import rules for products of animal origin by Member States in well-defined cases, such as containers of frozen fishery products from China, all of which has a negative impact on fair competition between Member States.

               2.

               The main problem has been identified with respect to the import of products of animal origin and the requirement of the so-called ‘double listing’ of vessels which supply third-state establishments.

               3.

               A food business operator who imports products of animal origin from outside the European Union may only import fishery products from a third country if the third county in question, from where the products are dispatched, and the establishment from which the product is sent and in which the product has been obtained or prepared, are both listed.


title: Case T-98/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (MULTIFIT)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/33

         Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (MULTIFIT)
   (Case T-98/18)
   (2018/C 134/48)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark MULTIFIT — Application No 15 996 291

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 in Case R 846/2017-1

      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 2017/1001.


title: Case T-99/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Stamatopoulos v ENISA

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/34

         Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Stamatopoulos v ENISA
   (Case T-99/18)
   (2018/C 134/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Grigorios Stamatopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the ENISA HR Team decision of 25/07/2017, with which the applicant’s application for the position of Head of Finance and Procurement at ENISA pursuant to the vacancy notice ‘ENISA-TA16-AD-2017-03’, was rejected, so that the Agency repeats the evaluation of the applicant’s candidacy in a fair and transparent way;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the moral damage he suffered from the illegalities vitiating the contested act with an amount of at least five thousand (5 000) euros; and

               —

               order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               With the first plea, the applicant claims that the contested act violates the defendant’s duty to state reasons, as it lacks sufficient reasoning for the rejection of his candidacy. While ENISA provided the applicant with his score for each selection criterion and his total score, the evaluation of all the candidates was comparative in nature and thus the points awarded to each applicant were the result of such a comparative analysis. The applicant thus contends that, in view of the fact that ENISA failed to communicate to him a specific reasoning for the points awarded to him for each criterion, including the comparative advantages of the successful candidates who advanced to the interviews and tests stage, it failed to provide a sufficient reasoning that would allow the applicant to ascertain whether the act adversely affecting him was well founded and whether it was appropriate to bring proceedings before the Tribunal and, secondly, to enable the Tribunal to review the legality of the act.

               2.

               With the second plea, the applicant contends that the Selection Committee’s evaluation of his abilities was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, particularly in the evaluation of the selection criteria: ‘High degree of organisational skills, accuracy and ability to analyse, compile and summarize complex financial information’; ‘Excellent negotiation and problem-solving skills’; ‘Strong ability to manage people and conflicts’; ‘Strong communication skills in English both orally and in writing’; and ‘Ability to remain effective under a heavy workload and to meet programmatic deadlines consistently regardless of working environment’s changes’.

               3.

               With the third plea, the applicant contends that the contested act violates the principles of equal treatment and transparency. As the threshold set by the Selection Committee for the candidates’ advancing to the round of interviews and tests was determined in an arbitrary and unlawful manner. The applicant contends that the vacancy notice did not contain any conditions regarding when the threshold would be set and what criteria the Selection Committee would have to take into consideration for determining it. Accordingly, the Selection Committee never provided any reasoning as to how it determined its level and communicated it to the candidates only after the conclusion of the evaluation.

               4.

               Finally, in view of the above illegalities, the applicant requests a compensation for the moral damage he suffered from participating in the flawed and unlawful procedure and from the lack of justification of his rejection, which can only be considered as a complete lack of respect for him and disregard for his right to having a fair administration.


title: Case T-77/18: Action brought on 12 February 2018 — VE v ESMA

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/26

         Action brought on 12 February 2018 — VE v ESMA
   (Case T-77/18)
   (2018/C 134/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: VE (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present appeal admissible and founded;

               —

               annul the applicant’s 2016 appraisal report in so far as it assesses the applicant’s performance as ‘unsatisfactory’;

               —

               together with, and so far as necessary, annul the decision of ESMA of 6 November 2017 which rejects the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant, evaluated ex aequo et bono to 10,000 Euros; and

               —

               order the reimbursement of all the costs incurred by his lawyers for the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               Plea of illegality in that the appraisal manual has been adopted by ESMA without having been submitted beforehand to the Staff Committee in accordance with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations.

               2.

               Breach of Article 43(1) of the Staff Regulations and Appraisal Manual in that the defendant made several manifest errors of assessment:

                           —

                           manifest errors of assessment in relation to the main activities of the applicant as regard the criteria ‘Efficiency’, ‘Abilities’ and ‘Conduct’; and

                           —

                           as regard the errors of assessment committed by the defendant in relation to the other activities of the applicant.

               3.

               Breach of the duty of care and of good administration as regards the applicant’s health problems and as regard the lack of guidance provided to the applicant and adverse working conditions and the absence of adequate trainings.


title: Case C-396/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — T — 2, družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme, d.o.o. (in insolvency) v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 184 and 185 — Adjustment of the deduction of input tax paid — Change in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted — Notion of ‘transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid’ — Effect of a decision approving an arrangement with creditors having the force of res judicata)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — T — 2, družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme, d.o.o. (in insolvency) v Republika Slovenija
   (Case C-396/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 184 and 185 - Adjustment of the deduction of input tax paid - Change in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted - Notion of ‘transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid’ - Effect of a decision approving an arrangement with creditors having the force of res judicata))
   (2018/C 134/08)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: T — 2, družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme, d.o.o. (in insolvency)

      Defendant: Republika Slovenija

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 185(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that the reduction of a debtor’s obligations resulting from the final approval of an arrangement with creditors constitutes a change in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted, for the purposes of that provision.

               2.

               The first subparagraph of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted to the effect that the reduction of a debtor’s obligations resulting from the final approval of an arrangement with creditors does not constitute a case of a transaction remaining totally or partially unpaid that does not give rise to an adjustment of the initial deduction, where that reduction is definitive, although that is a matter for the referring court to determine.

               3.

               The second subparagraph of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted to the effect that, in order to implement the option provided for in that provision, a Member State is not required to make express provision for an obligation to adjust the deductions in the case of transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


title: Case C-698/17 P: Appeal brought on 13 December 2017 by Mr Toni Klement against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2017 in Case T-211/14 RENV Toni Clement v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/13

         Appeal brought on 13 December 2017 by Mr Toni Klement against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2017 in Case T-211/14 RENV Toni Clement v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

   (Case C-698/17 P)
   (2018/C 134/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Toni Klement (represented by: J. Weiser, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the contested judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 in Case T-211/14 RENV; and

               2.

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies, in essence, on three grounds of appeal.
   In his first ground of appeal, the appellant argues that the statement of reasons in respect of the finding that the three-dimensional mark at issue has a distinctive character is inadequate. The judgment under appeal, he submits, does not provide any statement of reasons whatsoever as to why the three-dimensional mark at issue has a particularly high degree of distinctiveness, although its shape is purely technical. In that regard, the statement of reasons in the judgment is not clear and comprehensible in respect of an essential point and is therefore legally defective.
   In his second ground of appeal, the appellant argues that the statement of reasons for the finding that the word element ‘Bullerjan’, added to the mark at issue when in use, has a distinctive character is contradictory and inadequate. The judgment under appeal, he contends, failed to state what degree of distinctiveness the General Court attributed to the added word element. Without a finding as to the degree of distinctiveness of the added element, it is impossible to make a finding as to whether the distinctiveness of the mark at issue had been influenced by that element. The judgment under appeal is also, he argues, contradictory in that regard. The General Court thus, on the one hand, took the view that the word element makes it easier to determine the commercial origin of the goods, while, on the other hand, it stated that that element has no effect on the distinctiveness of the three-dimensional mark at issue. A facilitation of determination of commercial origin and an absence of effect on the degree of distinctiveness are, however, mutually exclusive.
   In his third ground of appeal, the appellant argues that an incorrect legal test was applied in determining the distinctiveness of the three-dimensional mark at issue. For the purpose of determining the degree of distinctiveness of a three-dimensional mark, the protected shape has to be compared with the shapes available on the market. The General Court, however, bases its reasoning, not on the available shapes, but on ‘the shape of an oven in general’. Such an average shape of an oven does not, however, exist.


title: Case T-79/18: Action brought on 9 February 2018 — Bekat v EUIPO — Borbet (ARBET)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/27

         Action brought on 9 February 2018 — Bekat v EUIPO — Borbet (ARBET)
   (Case T-79/18)
   (2018/C 134/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Arif Oliver Bekat (Esslingen, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Borbet GmbH (Hallenberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark ARBET — Application for registration No 14 320 915

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 December 2017 in Case R 1117/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and dismiss the intervener’s appeal of 26 May 2017 against the decision of the Opposition Division of 30 March 2017;

               —

               order the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.