title: Case T-257/19: Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Al Zoubi v Council

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/19

      Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Al Zoubi v Council
      (Case T-257/19)
      (2019/C 238/24)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Khaldoun Al Zoubi (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Cloquet, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;

                  —

                  annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that a manifest error of assessment of the facts was committed by the defendant stating that the applicant would be supporting the Syrian regime and would be benefiting from it, while such view would be plainly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that an infringement of the general principle of proportionality was committed and the measures taken in the contested acts would have such effects that they should be regarded as disproportionate in themselves. The economic consequences of the sanctions made against the applicant would be disastrous and disproportionate compared to the purposes the contested acts would be supposed to reach.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and the right to work was committed, in that the disputed measures would prevent the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his property and his economic freedom by way of infringing the first additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers. The contested acts would have been adopted with the aim of achieving objectives other than those stated herein, namely targeting the applicant himself instead of the regime for reasons that would be unknown to him, and so they would be vitiated by a misuse of powers.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that an infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296, paragraph 2, of TFEU was committed. The reasoning given for the contested acts would be, in reality, purely a formality and probably would have not been thought through by the defendant.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that an infringement of the rights of defence and right to a fair trial was committed. The applicant would have never been able to secure a hearing prior imposing the disputed restrictive measures, and since he would have been unable to exercise correctly his rights of defence, including his right to a fair trial, notably guaranteed by Article 6, paragraph 3, of the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 48, paragraph 2, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

         (1)  Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 18I, 21.1.2019, p. 13).

         (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ L 18I, 21.1.2019, p. 4).


title: Case T-309/19: Action brought on 20 May 2019 — BRF Singapore Foods v EUIPO — Tipiak (Sadia)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/32

      Action brought on 20 May 2019 — BRF Singapore Foods v EUIPO — Tipiak (Sadia)
      (Case T-309/19)
      (2019/C 246/34)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tipiak (Saint-Aignan de Grand Lieu, France)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Sadia in colours black and white — Application for registration No 12 084 356

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 in Case R 1834/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order Tipiak to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of general EU principles of the sound administration and equal treatment;

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-335/19: Action brought on 3 June 2019 — Cantieri del Mediterraneo v Commission

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/45

      Action brought on 3 June 2019 — Cantieri del Mediterraneo v Commission
      (Case T-335/19)
      (2019/C 246/47)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Cantieri del Mediterraneo S.p.A. (Naples, Italy) (represented by: F. Munari and L. Calzolari, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  The applicant claims that the Court should annul Article 1 of the contested decision under Article 263 et seq. TFEU.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      This action has been brought against Commission Decision C(2018) 6037 final of 20 September 2018 on State aid SA.36112 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Italy for the Port Authority of Naples and Cantieri del Mediterraneo S.p.A. (‘the contested decision’).
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 41, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and failure to observe the principles of good administration, equal treatment, non-discrimination and the adversarial principle, failure to state reasons and infringement of Article 296 TFEU.
                  The applicant claims in this respect that:

                              —

                              the contested decision was adopted in proceedings which did not safeguard the rights of defence of Cantieri del Mediterraneo S.p.A. (‘CAMED’), since, unlike the complainant, CAMED’s views were not heard at a hearing; and

                              —

                              the contested decision was adopted at the end of proceedings in which equal treatment of the complainant and the beneficiary of the alleged aid (‘equality of arms’) was not ensured.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of good administration, legal certainty and effective judicial protection as a result of the unlawful revocation of the 2006 decision to take no further action in the proceedings concerning the same measure now classified by the contested decision as aid more than ten years later.
                  The applicant claims in this respect that:

                              —

                              the contested decision should have declared that the revocation of the 2006 decision to take no further action in the proceedings concerning the same State measure was unlawful and should have found that that decision to take no further action precludes a finding that that measure constitutes State aid incompatible with the internal market; and

                              —

                              the contested decision should have stated that the [2006] decision to take no further action presupposes that the Commission has determined that the measure at issue is lawful and, therefore, prevents the Commission from adopting a second decision that provides a different classification of the same subject matter more than ten years later.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU by reason of misinterpretation of the concept of State aid in so far as the contested decision classified the Port Authority of Naples (‘the PAN’) as an undertaking.
                  The applicant claims in this respect that:

                              —

                              the contested decision should have stated that the PAN was not an ‘undertaking’ due to the fact that, under legge n. 84/1994 (Law No 84/1994), all port authorities are public authorities representing the State as regards Italian ports, which are entrusted with the performance of regulatory and administrative tasks in respect of all State property exclusively owned by the State solely in the public interest;

                              —

                              the contested decision should have stated that the PAN does not engage in ‘economic activity’ since Law No 84/1994 prohibits it from offering goods or services on a market, which indeed does not exist; and

                              —

                              the contested decision should have recognised the fiscal nature of the State fee in Italian law and its predetermination in legislation.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 345 TFEU and Articles 3, 7 and 121 TFEU, failure to observe multiple principles of EU law (equal treatment) and misuse of powers.
                  The applicant claims in this respect that:

                              —

                              the contested decision should have stated that the possibility of carrying out maintenance is a prerogative of the right to property and that the Treaty safeguards the right of the Member States to maintain public ownership of assets and infrastructure, including port assets and infrastructure, and to ensure all entitled persons have access thereto;

                              —

                              the contested decision cannot horizontally and unreasonably apply the same rules on the maintenance of port infrastructure or fees for the occupation of port areas to situations that are not comparable: the notable differences between the models for management of ports in the European Union mean that the construction of new infrastructure that is exclusively privately owned cannot be treated in the same way as the maintenance of inalienable State property owned by a Member State and managed by that Member State via the public authorities. Such an approach is at odds with the principle of equal treatment; and

                              —

                              the contested decision cannot pursue the harmonisation of the various organisational models of ports in the European Union by means of the indiscriminate and unreasonable application of Article 107 TFEU.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU by reason of misinterpretation of the concept of ‘advantage’.
                  The applicant claims in this respect that:

                              —

                              the contested decision should have stated that the measure does not reduce the PAN’s or CAMED’s costs, given that no undertaking normally bears the costs (let alone in their entirety) for the renovation of property that they do not (and cannot) own, since in Italy State property (in all the Italian ports) is owned exclusively by the State; and

                              —

                              the contested decision should have stated that the State infrastructure was assigned to CAMED following a transparent and competitive public procedure after the PAN undertook to renovate the State property in question. In the procedure used for the assignment of that property to CAMED all potentially interested parties were given the opportunity to obtain that property; carrying out a public procedure ensures compliance with the market operator test, without the successful tenderer receiving any advantage.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, failure to observe the principle of good administration, infringement of CAMED’s rights of defence and a defective statement of reasons on account of misinterpretation of selectivity.
                  The applicant claims in this respect that:

                              —

                              the contested decision cannot classify the measure as ad hoc aid and must follow the ‘selectivity test’ for measures of general application;

                              —

                              the contested decision should have ruled that the measure was not selective as regards the PAN since all the other port authorities benefitted from identical public grants in order to maintain all State infrastructure within their sphere of territorial competence; and

                              —

                              the contested decision should have ruled that the measure was not selective as regards CAMED since all undertakings operating in an Italian port (not only in Naples and not only in the shipbuilding industry) are subject to the same rules and, therefore, pay the same fee as CAMED for infrastructure built or renovated with public funds.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3 TEU and Article 7 TFEU, infringement of Articles 116 and 117 TFEU, misuse of powers, and lack of jurisdiction for the Commission to contest the fiscal nature and the amount of the State fees.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in this respect that the contested decision cannot challenge, on the basis of Article 107 TFEU, the amount of the State fee imposed on the concessionaires by the Italian State or claim that it does not correspond with market values, since, in Italian law, State fees are charges set by law that are not negotiated with individual State concessionaires, and tax systems fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Member States.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU since there is no distortion of competition or adverse effect on trade, and failure to state reasons.
                  The applicant claims in this respect that:

                              —

                              the contested decision cannot assume the existence of those two criteria, which are both distinct and cumulative; and

                              —

                              the contested decision should have ruled that those criteria were not fulfilled since the PAN does not operate on any market and does not have competitors and CAMED has gained no advantage from a measure which is only one of the countless implementing measures of a general plan which has affected all undertakings operating in every Italian port (including Naples), and not only those in the shipbuilding sector.

                  9.

                  Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU.
                  The applicant claims in this respect that:

                              —

                              the contested decision should have applied Article 107(2) TFEU since the maintenance made good damage caused by bombings during the second world war and by the earthquake of 1980; and

                              —

                              the contested decision should have applied Article 107(3)(a) and (c) TFEU since (i) the port of Naples is in a disadvantaged region, and (ii) the public financing of the port infrastructure pursues an objective of common interest, particularly given that the amount of the financing is less than the notification threshold under the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER).


title: Case T-343/19: Action brought on 7 June 2019 — Conlance v EUIPO — LG Electronics (SONANCE)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/48

      Action brought on 7 June 2019 — Conlance v EUIPO — LG Electronics (SONANCE)
      (Case T-343/19)
      (2019/C 246/48)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Conlance GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Hayn, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark SONANCE — Application for registration No 14 589 907

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2019 in Case R 1085/2018-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 15 May 2018 in Case No B 2 660 572‘Conlance GmbH v LG ELECTRONICS INC.’;

                  —

                  uphold Opposition Case No B 2 660 572‘Conlance GmbH v LG ELECTRONICS INC.’ for all the contested goods;

                  —

                  reject the EU trade mark application ‘SONANCE’, No UM 14 589 907;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

            In the event that another party is intervening in support of the defendant:

                  —

                  order the other party to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal 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 T-420/18: Order of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/49

      Order of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission
      (Case T-420/18) (1)

      (2019/C 246/49)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.


title: Case T-426/18: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Bizbike and Hartmobile v Commission

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/49

      Order of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Bizbike and Hartmobile v Commission
      (Case T-426/18) (1)

      (2019/C 246/50)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition, has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.


title: Case T-398/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Pielczyk v EUIPO — Thalgo TCH (DERMÆPIL SUGAR EPIL SYSTEM) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark DERMÆPIL sugar epil system — Earlier national figurative mark dermépil — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 64 (2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Comparison of the goods)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Pielczyk v EUIPO — Thalgo TCH (DERMÆPIL SUGAR EPIL SYSTEM)
      (Case T-398/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark DERMÆPIL sugar epil system - Earlier national figurative mark dermépil - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 64 (2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Comparison of the goods)
      (2019/C 263/54)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Radoslaw Pielczyk (Klijndijk, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Kielar, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and K. Kompari, Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Thalgo TCH (Roquebrune-sur-Argens, France) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2018 (Joined Cases R 979/2017-4 and R 1070/2017-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Thalgo TCH and Mr Pielczyk

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Radoslaw Pielczyk to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.


title: Case T-449/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Ortlieb Sportartikel v EUIPO (Representation of an octagon) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark representing an octagon — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/48

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Ortlieb Sportartikel v EUIPO (Representation of an octagon)
      (Case T-449/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark representing an octagon - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 263/55)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Ortlieb Sportartikel GmbH (Heilsbronn, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulff and K. Schmidt-Hern, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2018 (Case R 1634/2017-1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing an octagon as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Ortlieb Sportartikel GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.


title: Case T-151/18: Action brought on 24 June 2019 — VK v Council

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/49

      Action brought on 24 June 2019 — VK v Council
      (Case T-151/18)
      (2019/C 263/56)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: VK (represented by: K. Lara, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/141 of 29 January 2018 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2018 L 25, p. 38) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/135 of 28 January 2019 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2019 L 25, p. 23), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant;

                  —

                  order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 31, 46 and 55 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption. The applicant claims in that regard that, in accordance with those provisions, a protective freezing and confiscation measure must be based on either a decision of the requesting State Party or a statement of relevant facts made by that same State Party with a description of the measures requested. According to the applicant, the restrictive measures were ordered and extended without even a brief statement of the facts complained of. In addition, Tunisia does not seek the maintenance of the restrictive measures at issue.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment when it considered that it did not have to take into account the evidence produced by the applicant and the arguments developed by him or make further enquiries of the Tunisian authorities, whereas that evidence and those arguments were such as to raise legitimate questions regarding the reliability of the information provided.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Council in that it is complicit with the Tunisian authorities the sole purpose of which is to justify the unfair and unlawful dispossession of the applicant’s property without the applicant having been able to defend himself and without any means of redress.


title: Case T-317/19: Action brought on 23 May 2019 — AMVAC Netherlands v Commission

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/50

      Action brought on 23 May 2019 — AMVAC Netherlands v Commission
      (Case T-317/19)
      (2019/C 263/57)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: AMVAC Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu, M. Grunchard and S. Englebert, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/344 of 28 February 2019; (1)

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all 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 that the contested regulation was adopted further to a manifest error of assessment.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation results from a procedure during which the applicant’s rights of defence were not respected.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the proportionality principle.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the precautionary principle.

         (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/344 of 28 February 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance ethoprophos, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 62, p. 7).


title: Case C-221/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku (Poland) lodged on 11 March 2019 — Criminal proceedings against AV

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/16

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku (Poland) lodged on 11 March 2019 — Criminal proceedings against AV
      (Case C-221/19)
      (2019/C 280/22)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku

         Party to the main proceedings

      AV

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings, (1) which provides that the taking into account of previous convictions handed down in other Member States, as provided for in paragraph 1, shall not have the effect of interfering with, revoking or reviewing previous convictions or any decision relating to their execution by the Member State conducting the new proceedings, be interpreted as meaning that interference for the purposes of that provision is to be taken to mean not only the inclusion in an aggregate sentence of a conviction handed down by a judgment delivered in a State of the European Union but also the inclusion in the aggregate sentence of such a conviction which was taken over for execution in another State of the European Union, together with a conviction handed down in the latter State, within the framework of the aggregate sentence?

                  2.

                  In light of the provisions of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (2) which are laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) thereof and concern the principles of the exequatur procedure, and also in the light of Article 19(1) and (2) thereof — which provides that an amnesty or pardon may be granted by the issuing State and also by the executing State (paragraph 1); only the issuing State may decide on applications for review of the judgment imposing the sentence to be enforced under this Framework Decision (paragraph 2) — and of the first sentence of Article 17(1) thereof — which provides that the enforcement of a sentence is to be governed by the law of the executing State — is it possible to pass an aggregate sentence which would include the sentences imposed by a judgment delivered in a State of the European Union that was taken over for execution in another State of the European Union, together with a conviction handed down in the latter State, within the framework of the aggregate sentence?

         (1)  OJ 2008 L 220, p. 32.

         (2)  OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27.


title: Case T-542/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Port of Tartous Loan Agreement No 22057 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria
      (Case T-542/17) (1)

      (Arbitration clause - Port of Tartous Loan Agreement No 22057 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
      (2019/C 280/49)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

         Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Port of Tartous Loan Agreement No 22057, plus default interest.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 20 609 429,45;

                  2.

                     Declares that those sums are to bear default interest, in accordance with the method laid down in Article 3.02 of Port of Tartous loan agreement No 22057, entered into by the EIB and the Syrian Arab Republic on 22 May 2003 and amended on 17 May 2006, 21 May 2007 and 10 July 2008, on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, from 9 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

                  3.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  4.

                     Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


title: Case T-543/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement No 21595 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria
      (Case T-543/17) (1)

      (Arbitration clause - Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement No 21595 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
      (2019/C 280/50)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

         Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement No 21595, plus default interest.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB) the sums of EUR 62 646 209,04 and 3 582 381,15 US dollars (USD);

                  2.

                     Declares that those sums are to bear default interest, in accordance with the method laid down in Article 3.02 of Syrian Healthcare loan agreement No 21595, entered into by the EIB and the Syrian Arab Republic on 15 June 2002 and amended on 17 October and 29 November 2007, on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, from 9 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

                  3.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  4.

                     Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


title: Case T-588/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 –EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement No 80211 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 –EIB v Syria
      (Case T-588/17) (1)

      (Arbitration clause - Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement No 80211 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
      (2019/C 280/51)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

         Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement No 80211, plus default interest

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 2 184 271,58;

                  2.

                     Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

                  3.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  4.

                     Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


title: Case T-589/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Aleppo-Tall Kojak Road Project Loan Agreement No 60136 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria
      (Case T-589/17) (1)

      (Arbitration clause - Aleppo-Tall Kojak Road Project Loan Agreement No 60136 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
      (2019/C 280/52)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

         Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Aleppo-Tall Kojak Road Project Loan Agreement No 60136, plus default interest.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Investment Bank (EIB) the sum of EUR 820 451,25;

                  2.

                     Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

                  3.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  4.

                     Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs

         (1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


title: Case C-594/19 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2019 by Deutsche Lufthansa AG against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 17 May 2019 in Case T-764/15, Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission

text:
               23.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/28

      Appeal brought on 2 August 2019 by Deutsche Lufthansa AG against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 17 May 2019 in Case T-764/15, Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission
      (Case C-594/19 P)
      (2019/C 319/29)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

                  —

                  set aside the order of the General Court of 17 May 2019 in Case T-764/15;

                  —

                  grant the form of order sought at first instance and annul the underlying Commission Decision SA.32833 of 1 October 2014; (1)

                  —

                  in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      By its appeal, the appellant puts forward, in essence, the following grounds of appeal:

                  —

                  The appellant already had locus standi in accordance with the judgment in Montessori. (2) That is because the granting of a loan from the liquidity pool in the amount of EUR 45 million in favour of Flughafen Frankfurt-Hahn GmbH constitutes an aid scheme. Furthermore, the funds from that loan demonstrably went to Ryanair.

                  —

                  If the so-called Mory case-law (3) is applied, then the first alternative solution should be applied. The Commission disregarded essential elements of fact and additional benefits. Owing to the infringement of the appellant’s procedural rights, the Commission cannot be deemed to have conducted a proper investigation procedure. In this case too, the appellant was individually concerned and therefore had locus standi.

                  —

                  Alternatively, the action is also admissible if the second alternative solution of the so-called Mory case-law is applied, according to which the appellant would have to prove that its market position was substantially affected by the aid. In this case the burden of proof is reversed, or at least lessened in favour of the appellant, since the Commission arbitrarily concealed the relevant facts that were known to it. Only in the alternative, the appellant submits that it has in fact also proved that it was substantially affected. The General Court’s legal assessment, which found otherwise, goes beyond the Court of Justice’s case-law and is based on a legally erroneous understanding of the relevant market. In that regard, the General Court distorts and curtails the appellant’s statement of the facts, alters the content of the decision at issue and infringes the rules governing the burden of proof.

         (1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2016/788 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.32833 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Germany concerning the financing arrangements for Frankfurt Hahn airport put into place in 2009 to 2011 (OJ 2016 L 134, p. 1).

         (2)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 November 2018, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl and Others (C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P, EU:C:2018:873).

         (3)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 September 2015, Mory SA and Others v European Commission (C-33/14 P, EU:C:2015:609).


title: Case T-516/19: Action brought on 19 July 2019 — VDV eTicket Service v Commission and INEA

text:
               23.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/29

      Action brought on 19 July 2019 — VDV eTicket Service v Commission and INEA
      (Case T-516/19)
      (2019/C 319/30)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: VDV eTicket Service GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Bartosch, lawyer)

         Defendants: European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare pursuant to Article 272 TFEU that the failure to acknowledge costs in the amount of EUR 407 443,04 via the letter at issue is unlawful;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul the contested decision pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of Article 263 TFEU;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The action is brought against the decision of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) ARES(2019)3151305 of 13 May 2019, in so far as it declares that the applicant’s costs in the amount of EUR 407 443,04 in the context of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme — Project: 636126 — European Travellers Club are not recoverable.
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea: abuse of rights, as the defendants necessarily should have known of the incorrect allocation of costs

                              —

                              The defendants committed an abuse of rights on the ground that, first, they did not acknowledge certain subcontracting costs incurred by the applicant and, secondly, they should however have known from a number of documents that the applicant’s subcontracting costs were considerably higher than stated in Annex 2 to the grant agreement in question.

                  2.

                  Second plea: infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations

                              —

                              The defendants also infringed the principle of protection of legitimate expectations for the same reasons as those set out in the first plea.


title: Case C-452/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 12 June 2019 — YV v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/13

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 12 June 2019 — YV v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
      (Case C-452/19)
      (2019/C 328/14)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: YV

         Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Whether, under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, the following ruling is compliant with EU law in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant case-law: the ruling by the Supreme Court in judgments 44 to 49 of 23 January 2019, which establishes the unambiguous criterion that a term in a consumer mortgage loan agreement that has not been negotiated and that stipulates that all the costs of arranging the mortgage are to be borne by the borrower is unfair, and which apportions the various expenses that are involved in the unfair term found to be void between the bank that imposed the term and the borrower, in order to limit repayments of amounts wrongly paid under national legislation.
                  And whether, under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant case-law, it is compliant with EU law for the Supreme Court to adopt an inclusive interpretation of a term that is void for unfairness if the term can be severed and its effects abolished without affecting the continued existence of the mortgage loan agreement.

                  2.

                  Also, whether, as regards Article 394 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on Civil Procedure), which establishes the principle that the costs of proceedings are to be borne by the unsuccessful party, it can be held that where an unfair expenses clause is declared void but the effects of voiding the term are limited to apportioning the expenses in question, it is contrary to the EU legal principles of effectiveness and the non-binding nature of unfair terms to conclude that a claim has been upheld in part, and whether such a conclusion could be interpreted as producing an inverse deterrent effect, which thus fails to protect the legitimate interests of consumers and users.

         (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-406/15: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2019 — Mahmoudian v Council (Non-contractual liability — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Freezing of funds — Restrictions on admission to the territories of the Member States — Compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures — Material damage — Non-material damage)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2019 — Mahmoudian v Council
      (Case T-406/15) (1)

      (Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on admission to the territories of the Member States - Compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures - Material damage - Non-material damage)
      (2019/C 328/38)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Fereydoun Mahmoudian (Tehran, Iran) (represented by A. Bahrami and N. Korogiannikis, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Aresu and D. Gauci, then by A. Aresu and R. Tricot acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010, L 281, p. 1), by which the applicant’s name was included and maintained on the lists of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Orders the Council of the European Union to pay Mr Fereydoun Mahmoudian EUR 71 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                     Orders Mr Fereydoun Mahmoudian, the Council and the Commission each to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case T-522/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — CCPL and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Retail food packaging market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Attributability of unlawful conduct — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Value of sales — Ceiling of the fine — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Ability to pay)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — CCPL and Others v Commission
      (Case T-522/15) (1)

      (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Retail food packaging market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Attributability of unlawful conduct - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Ceiling of the fine - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Ability to pay)
      (2019/C 328/39)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicants: CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC (Reggio Emilia, Italy), Coopbox group SpA (Reggio Emilia), Poliemme Srl (Reggio Emilia), Coopbox Hispania, SL (Lorca, Spain), Coopbox Eastern s. r. o. (Nové Mesto nad Váhom, Slovakia) (represented by: S. Bariatti and E. Cucchiara, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Jimeno Fernández, A. Biolan and P. Rossi, and subsequently by F. Jimeno Fernandez, P. Rossi and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for, principally, the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging) and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls Article 2(1)(f) and (g), Article 2(d) and (e) and Article 2(4)(c) and (d) of Commission Decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging);

                  2.

                     Orders the European Commission to pay the costs, including those of the application for interim measures.

         (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case T-894/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Air France v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Measures implemented by France in favour of Marseille Provence Airport and airlines using the airport — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Investment subsidies — Differentiation between airport charges applicable to national and international flights — Reduced airport charges to encourage flights from the new Marseille Provence terminal 2 — Lack of individual concern — No substantial effect on the competitive position — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Air France v Commission
      (Case T-894/16) (1)

      (Action for annulment - State aid - Measures implemented by France in favour of Marseille Provence Airport and airlines using the airport - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Investment subsidies - Differentiation between airport charges applicable to national and international flights - Reduced airport charges to encourage flights from the new Marseille Provence terminal 2 - Lack of individual concern - No substantial effect on the competitive position - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 328/43)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Société Air France (Tremblay-en-France, France) (represented by: R. Sermier, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë, C. Giolito and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Aéroport Marseille Provence SA (Marignane, France) (represented by: A. Lepièce, lawyer), Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) and Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1698 of 20 February 2014 concerning measures SA.22932 (11/C) (ex NN 37/07) implemented by France in favour of Marseille Provence Airport and airlines using the airport (OJ 2016 L 260, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

                  2.

                     Orders Société Air France to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission

                  3.

                     Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd and Aéroport Marseille Provence SA to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.


title: Case T-291/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Transdev and Others v Commission (State aid — State aid scheme implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 — Investment subsidies granted by the Île-de-France Region — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ — Article 107 TFEU — Article 108 TFEU — Article 1(b)(i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Limitation period — Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Transdev and Others v Commission
      (Case T-291/17) (1)

      (State aid - State aid scheme implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 - Investment subsidies granted by the Île-de-France Region - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Article 107 TFEU - Article 108 TFEU - Article 1(b)(i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Limitation period - Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589 - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2019/C 328/44)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Transdev (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France), Transdev Île de France (Issy-les-Moulineaux), Transports rapides automobiles (TRA) (Villepinte, France) (represented by: F. Salat-Baroux, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017, on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the application.

                  2.

                     Orders Transdev, Transdev Île de France and Transports rapides automobiles (TRA) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


title: Case T-292/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Île-de-France Region v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 — Investment subsidies awarded by the Île-de-France Region — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Advantage — Selective nature — Article 107(1) TFEU — Obligation to state reasons — Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ — Article 108 TFEU — Article 1, (b) (i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Île-de-France Region v Commission
      (Case T-292/17) (1)

      (State aid - Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 - Investment subsidies awarded by the Île-de-France Region - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Advantage - Selective nature - Article 107(1) TFEU - Obligation to state reasons - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Article 108 TFEU - Article 1, (b) (i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589)
      (2019/C 328/45)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Île-de-France Region (France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the application;

                  2.

                     Orders Île-de-France Region to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


title: Case T-309/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Optile v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 — Investment subsidies awarded by the Île-de-France region — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ — Article 107 TFEU — Article 108 TFEU — Article 1, (b) (i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Limitation period — Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/43

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Optile v Commission
      (Case T-309/17) (1)

      (State aid - Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 - Investment subsidies awarded by the Île-de-France region - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Article 107 TFEU - Article 108 TFEU - Article 1, (b) (i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Limitation period - Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)
      (2019/C 328/46)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Organisation professionnelle des transports d’Île de France (Optile) (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Thiriez and M. Dangibeaud, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the application;

                  2.

                     Orders the Organisation professionnelle des transports d’Île de France (Optile) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.


title: Case T-331/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Steifer v EESC (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Pension entitlement acquired before entry into service of the EU — Transfer to the EU scheme — Grant of additional seniority — Reimbursement of the amount of pension entitlement not taken into account in the scheme for the calculation of annuities of pension of the EU — No new and substantial facts — No excusable error — Liability — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Steifer v EESC
      (Case T-331/17) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Pension entitlement acquired before entry into service of the EU - Transfer to the EU scheme - Grant of additional seniority - Reimbursement of the amount of pension entitlement not taken into account in the scheme for the calculation of annuities of pension of the EU - No new and substantial facts - No excusable error - Liability - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 328/48)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Guy Steifer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A Lucas and M. Bertha, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino and L. Camarena Januzec, acting and Agents, assisted by M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, to annul the decision of 21 October 2002 of the Director of Human and Financial Resources of the EESC rejecting the applicant’s request of 2 October 2002 for reimbursement, together with applicable interest, of the part of his Belgian pension rights not credited on transfer to the EU pension scheme and Decision No 360/03 A of that Director of 15 December 2003 fixing the applicant’s entitlement to a retirement pension, second, to order the EESC to reimburse the applicant the amount of the periodic annuity payments paid by the Belgian National Pensions Office to the EESC since 1 January 2004 as a result of the transfer of his pension rights and to reimburse the applicant each month the amount of the periodic annuity payments to be paid in the future and, third, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of one of the grounds of that decision by which the Director wrongly informed him that he had no right to a Belgian pension.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

                  2.

                     Orders Guy Steifer to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


title: Case T-738/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — STIF-IDF v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 — Investment subsidies awarded by the STIF-IDF — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Advantage — Offsetting of costs involved in the discharging of public service obligations — Article 107(1), TFEU — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/45

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — STIF-IDF v Commission
      (Case T-738/17) (1)

      (State aid - Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 - Investment subsidies awarded by the STIF-IDF - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Advantage - Offsetting of costs involved in the discharging of public service obligations - Article 107(1), TFEU - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2019/C 328/49)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Syndicat Transport Île de France (STIF-IDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret and C. Rydzynski, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the application.

                  2.

                     Orders Syndicat Transport Île de France (STIF-IDF) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case T-53/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — Germany v Commission (Approximation of laws — Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 — Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 — Construction products — Harmonised standards EN 13341:2005 + A1:2011 and EN 12285-2:2005 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — Germany v Commission
      (Case T-53/18) (1)

      (Approximation of laws - Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 - Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 - Construction products - Harmonised standards EN 13341:2005 + A1:2011 and EN 12285-2:2005 - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2019/C 328/50)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by T. Henze and J. Möller, and subsequently by J. Möller, acting as Agents, and by M. Winkelmüller, F. van Schewick and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of, first, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1995 of 6 November 2017 to maintain in the Official Journal of the European Union the reference of harmonised standard EN 13341:2005 + A1:2011 on static thermoplastic tanks for above-ground storage of domestic heating oils, kerosene and diesel fuels in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 288, p. 36) and, second, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1996 of 6 November 2017 to maintain in the Official Journal of the European Union the reference of harmonised standard EN 12285-2:2005 on Workshop fabricated steel tanks in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 288, p. 39)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case T-95/18: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Complaint — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Error of fact)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Gollnisch v Parliament
      (Case T-95/18) (1)

      (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Complaint - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Error of fact)
      (2019/C 328/51)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, lawyer)

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

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

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 1 July 2016 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 275 984.23 unduly paid as parliamentary assistance allowance, the debit note of 5 July 2016 relating thereto, and the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 23 October 2017 confirming the decision of the Quaestors of 14 March 2017 rejecting the complaint directed against the decision of 1 July 2016.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament;

                  3.

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

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Case T-274/18: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Klymenko v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Klymenko v Council
      (Case T-274/18) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)
      (2019/C 328/52)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Olexsandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018, amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L63, p. 48) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018, amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

                  2.

                     Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.


title: Case T-285/18: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Pshonka v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted with regard to the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Obligation on the Council to check that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/48

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Pshonka v Council
      (Case T-285/18) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted with regard to the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Obligation on the Council to check that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection)
      (2019/C 328/53)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and R. Pekař, Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka’s name was maintained on the list of person, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

                  2.

                     Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.


title: Case T-349/18: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Hauzenberger v EUIPO (TurboPerformance) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark TurboPerformance — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/50

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Hauzenberger v EUIPO (TurboPerformance)
      (Case T-349/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark TurboPerformance - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 328/55)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Andreas Hauzenberger (Sinzing, Germany) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2018 (Case R 2206/2017-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign TurboPerformance as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Andreas Hauzenberger to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: Case T-397/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — Hugo’s Hotel v EUIPO — H'ugo's (HUGO’S BURGER Bar) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark HUGO’S BURGER Bar — Earlier EU word mark H’ugo’s — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/50

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — Hugo’s Hotel v EUIPO — H'ugo's (HUGO’S BURGER Bar)
      (Case T-397/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark HUGO’S BURGER Bar - Earlier EU word mark H’ugo’s - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 328/56)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Hugo’s Hotel Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: R. Sladden, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and J. Ivanauskas, Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: H’ugo’s GmbH (Munich, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2018 (Case R 1879/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between H’ugo’s and Hugo’s Hotel 2 May 2018 (Case R 1879/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between H’ugo’s and Hugo’s Hotel.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Hugo’s Hotel Ltd to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.


title: Case T-482/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — XF v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Installation allowance — Temporary change of place of employment — Change of residence)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/51

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — XF v Commission
      (Case T-482/18) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Installation allowance - Temporary change of place of employment - Change of residence)
      (2019/C 328/57)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: XF (represented by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by T. Bohr and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 2 October 2017, by which it refused to grant the applicant the benefit of the installation allowance when he moved and took up his appointment at the headquarters of the European External Action Service (EEAS) in Brussels (Belgium).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders XF to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.


title: Case T-158/18: Order of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — Scaloni and Figini v Commission (Action for damages — Resolution of credit institutions and investment firms — Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — State Aid — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/52

      Order of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — Scaloni and Figini v Commission
      (Case T-158/18) (1)

      (Action for damages - Resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - State Aid - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifest inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 328/59)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicants: Mario Scaloni (Ancona, Italy) and Ennio Figini (Chiaravalle, Italy) (represented by: P. Putti, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, A. Steiblytė and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and M. Sammut, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for material loss alleged to have been suffered as a result of the Commission’s refusal to allow the Italian state to establish a state aid in favour of the Banca delle Marche.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Mario Scaloni and Ennio Figini shall bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission.

                  3.

                     The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union shall bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.


title: Case T-544/18: Order of the General Court of (Ninth Chamber) of 5 July 2019 — ArcelorMittal Bremen v Commission (Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances — Notification of a change in the national allocation table for Germany for the period from 2013 to 2020 — Request to change the national allocation table recorded in the European Union Transaction Log — Action for failure to act — Instruction given during the proceedings by the Commission to the central administration — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/53

      Order of the General Court of (Ninth Chamber) of 5 July 2019 — ArcelorMittal Bremen v Commission
      (Case T-544/18) (1)

      (Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances - Notification of a change in the national allocation table for Germany for the period from 2013 to 2020 - Request to change the national allocation table recorded in the European Union Transaction Log - Action for failure to act - Instruction given during the proceedings by the Commission to the central administration - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
      (2019/C 328/60)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: ArcelorMittal Bremen GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and D. Jacob, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Application, principally, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to instruct the central administrator to record in the national allocation table in the European Union Transaction Log (EUTL) the change notified on 8 February 2018 by the Federal Republic of Germany in respect of the applicant’s installation and, in the alternative, an application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the alleged decision adopted by the Commission on 31 August 2018 following the applicant’s letter of formal notice of 14 May 2018.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

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

                  2.

                     The claim seeking to ‘reprimand’ the Commission representatives for having produced inaccurate material before the General Court and for having failed to comply with their procedural obligation to present a factually accurate statement is rejected.

                  3.

                     There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application by the Federal Republic of Germany for permission to intervene.

                  4.

                     The Commission shall bear its own costs and those incurred by ArcelorMittal Bremen GmbH.

                  5.

                     The Federal Republic of Germany shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.


title: Case T-654/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission (Dumping — Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China — Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) — Rejection of a request for a partial interim review, limited to dumping aspects, of the definitive anti-dumping duty established by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 — Lasting change in circumstances — Sampling — Individual examination — No cooperation in the investigation that led to the adoption of the definitive measures)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/20

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission
      (Case T-654/16) (1)

      ((Dumping - Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Rejection of a request for a partial interim review, limited to dumping aspects, of the definitive anti-dumping duty established by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 - Lasting change in circumstances - Sampling - Individual examination - No cooperation in the investigation that led to the adoption of the definitive measures))
      (2018/C 381/22)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd. (Foshan City, China) (represented by: B. Spinoit and D. Philippe, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França, T. Maxian Rusche, N. Kuplewatzky and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 4259 final of 11 July 2016 rejecting a request for a partial interim review limited to dumping aspects with regard to the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.


title: Case C-452/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Teruel (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2018 — XZ v Ibercaja Banco, S.A.

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/2

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Teruel (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2018 — XZ v Ibercaja Banco, S.A.
      (Case C-452/18)
      (2018/C 381/03)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Teruel

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: XZ

         Defendant: Ibercaja Banco, S.A.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must the principle that void contractual terms are not binding (Article 6 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993) (1) also extend to subsequent contracts and legal arrangements concerning such terms, such as a novation contract?
                  And, given that absolute nullity means that the said term is deemed never to have existed in the legal/financial life of the contract, can it be concluded that subsequent legal transactions and their effect on the term in question — that is, the novation contract — also disappear from legal reality and must be deemed non-existent and without effect?

                  2.

                  Can documents which amend, or make a settlement in respect of, non-negotiated terms and may not satisfy the fairness and transparency tests be considered to be in the nature of general contractual terms for the purposes of Article 3 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 and be subject to the same grounds for invalidity that apply to the original documents that are the subject of the novation or settlement?

                  3.

                  Must the waiver of rights of action contained in a novation contract also be void, in so far as the contracts signed by customers did not inform them either of the fact that a contractual term was void or of the money or financial sum they were entitled to receive in repayment of interest paid as a result of the initial imposition of the ‘floor clauses’?
                  It is noted that customers thus sign a waiver agreeing not to sue, without having been told by the bank what rights they are waiving or how much money they are giving up.

                  4.

                  When the amending novation contract is examined in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice and Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Directive [93/13], is the new floor clause included vitiated once again by a lack of transparency, as the bank has again failed to comply with the transparency criteria laid down in the [judgment of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain)] of 9 May 2013 and failed to inform the customer of the true financial cost of the said term in his mortgage, which would make him aware of the interest rate (and the resulting amount) that he would have to pay if the new floor clause were to be applied, and the interest rate (and the resulting amount) that he would have to pay if no floor clause were applied and the interest rate agreed in the mortgage were applied with no lower limit?
                  In other words, when the financial institution imposed the document referred to as a novation in respect of ‘floor clauses’, should it have satisfied the transparency tests described in Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Directive [93/13] and informed the consumer of the amount of money lost as a result of applying the ‘floor clauses’, and of the interest rate that would be applicable in the absence of those clauses, and, given that the bank did not do so, are those documents also vitiated by a ground of nullity?

                  5.

                  In view of their content, can the terms concerning legal action included in the general terms and conditions of the amending novation contract be considered unfair under Article 3(1) [of Directive 93/13] in conjunction with the Annex listing unfair terms, and specifically with paragraph (q) of the Annex (terms shall be regarded as unfair where they exclude or hinder the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy), given that they restrict the right of consumers to exercise rights that may arise or become evident after the contract has been signed, as was the case with the possibility of claiming full repayment of the interest paid (in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2016)? (2)

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

         (2)  Judgment of 21 December 2016, Gutiérrez Naranjo and Others, C-154/15, C-307/15 and C-308/15, EU:C:2016:980.


title: Case T-715/15: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY GEEK SQUAD)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/31

      Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY GEEK SQUAD)
      (Case T-715/15) (1)

      (2018/C 381/36)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.