title: Case T-508/18: Action brought on 24 August 2018 — OLX v EUIPO — Stra (STRADIA)

text:
               15.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/18

      Action brought on 24 August 2018 — OLX v EUIPO — Stra (STRADIA)
      (Case T-508/18)
      (2018/C 373/20)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: OLX BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Lodge, K. Gilbert, Solicitors and V. Jones, Barrister)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stra Lda (Coimbra, Portugal)

         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 word mark STRADIA — Application for registration No 14 841 985

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 in joined Cases R 2228/2017-4 and R 2229/2017-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  in the alternative, alter the contested decision to state that the Opposition should be remitted to the Opposition Division for it to reconsider the Opposition;

                  —

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

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-510/18: Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Kaddour v Council

text:
               15.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/19

      Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Kaddour v Council
      (Case T-510/18)
      (2018/C 373/21)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damas, Syria) (represented by: V. Davies and V. Wilkinson, Solicitors)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the 2018 Measures insofar as they apply to Dr Kaddour; and

                  —

                  order the Council to pay Dr Kaddour’s costs of this application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is directed against Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 1), insofar as those measures apply to the applicant (‘the 2018 Measures’).
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the 2018 Measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of Articles 27 and 28(2) of Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836 (3) and Article 15(1b) of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1828 (4).

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the 2018 Measures amount to a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of Human Rights in regard to the applicant’s rights to respect for his reputation and peaceful enjoyment of his property and the principle of proportionality.

         (1)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14).

         (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1).

         (3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836 of 12 October 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 266, p. 75).

         (4)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1828 of 12 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 266, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2018 in Case E-14/17 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 447/2013)

text:
               15.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 14 June 2018
      in Case E-14/17
      EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

         (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 447/2013)

      (2018/C 414/11)
      In Case E-14/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbb of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing the procedure for AIFMs which choose to opt in under Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
      The Court hereby:

                  1.

                  Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbb of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing the procedure for AIFMs which choose to opt in under Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order.

                  2.

                  Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-582/18: Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Boxer Barcelona v EUIPO — X-Technology Swiss (XBOXER)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/94

      Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Boxer Barcelona v EUIPO — X-Technology Swiss (XBOXER)
      (Case T-582/18)
      (2018/C 427/124)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Boxer Barcelona, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: X-Technology Swiss GmbH (Wollerau, Switzerland)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark XBOXER — Application for registration No 11 673 068

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 2186/2017-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  —

                  Insufficiency of the evidence of use submitted by the opponent.

                  —

                  Absence of confusion as regards the similarity between the opposing marks and the mark applied for.


title: Joined Cases T-339/16, T-352/16 and T-391/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ville de Paris, Ville de Bruxelles and Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EU) 2016/646 — Pollutant emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) — Fixing, in respect of nitrogen oxide emissions, of not-to-exceed (NTE) values, during tests in real driving conditions (RDE) — Actions for annulment — Powers of a municipal authority concerning environmental protection to restrict the circulation of certain vehicles — Whether directly concerned — Admissibility — Lack of competence of the Commission — Compliance with higher legal norms — Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment — Non-contractual liability — Compensation for alleged harm to image and reputation)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ville de Paris, Ville de Bruxelles and Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission
      (Joined Cases T-339/16, T-352/16 and T-391/16) (1)

      ((Environment - Regulation (EU) 2016/646 - Pollutant emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) - Fixing, in respect of nitrogen oxide emissions, of not-to-exceed (NTE) values, during tests in real driving conditions (RDE) - Actions for annulment - Powers of a municipal authority concerning environmental protection to restrict the circulation of certain vehicles - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Lack of competence of the Commission - Compliance with higher legal norms - Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment - Non-contractual liability - Compensation for alleged harm to image and reputation))
      (2019/C 82/48)
      Languages of the cases: Spanish and French

         Parties

         Applicant in Case T-339/16: Ville de Paris (France) (represented by: J. Assous, lawyer)

         Applicant in Case T-352/16: Ville de Bruxelles (Belgium) (represented by: M. Uyttendaele and S. Kaisergruber, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-391/16: Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain) (represented by: F. Zunzunegui Pastor, lawyer

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

         Re:

      First, applications based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) (OJ 2016 L 109, p. 1) and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for damage that the City of Paris allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of that regulation.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls point 2 of Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) in so far as it fixes, in points 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of Annex III A to Commission Regulation No 692/2008 of 18 July 2008 implementing Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, the final conformity factor CFpollutant and the temporary conformity factor CFpollutant for the mass of oxides of nitrogen;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Maintains the effects of the annulled provision under paragraph 1 of the present operative part until the adoption within a reasonable period of a new regulation replacing those provisions, that period not to exceed 12 months from the date on which the present judgment takes effect;

                  4.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Ville de Paris, the Ville de Bruxelles and the Ayuntamiento de Madrid.

         (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case C-168/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — SH v TG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Libya — A chain of contracts concluded with the aim of issuing a bank guarantee for the benefit of an entity on a list of entities whose funds are to be frozen — Payment of costs arising under counter guarantee agreements — Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 — Article 5 — Definition of ‘funds made available to an entity referred to in Annex III to Regulation No 204/2011’ — Article 12(1)(c) — Definition of ‘a claim under a guarantee’ — Definition of a ‘person or entity acting on behalf of a person referred to in Article 12(1)(a) or (b)’)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/4

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — SH v TG
      (Case C-168/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Libya - A chain of contracts concluded with the aim of issuing a bank guarantee for the benefit of an entity on a list of entities whose funds are to be frozen - Payment of costs arising under counter guarantee agreements - Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 - Article 5 - Definition of ‘funds made available to an entity referred to in Annex III to Regulation No 204/2011’ - Article 12(1)(c) - Definition of ‘a claim under a guarantee’ - Definition of a ‘person or entity acting on behalf of a person referred to in Article 12(1)(a) or (b)’))
      (2019/C 93/05)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Kúria

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: SH

         Defendant: TG

         Intervening party: UF

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya is to be interpreted as:

                              —

                              being applicable in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the costs payable under a counter guarantee agreement must be paid by an EU bank to a Libyan bank listed in Annex III to that regulation; and

                              —

                              not being applicable, in principle, in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the costs payable under a counter guarantee agreement must be paid by an EU bank to a Libyan bank whose name is no longer on the list in Annex III to that regulation or by one EU bank to another EU bank, where the bank guarantee granted by the Libyan bank benefits an entity which is on that list, unless such a payment leads, as a result of the legal or financial links that exist between the bank receiving that payment and the entity on that list, to the costs in question being made available indirectly to that entity.

                  2.

                  Article 12 of Regulation No 204/2011 is to be interpreted as:

                              —

                              being applicable, in its original version, where costs payable under counter guarantee agreements must be paid by an EU bank to a Libyan bank listed in Annex III to that regulation and by an EU bank to a Libyan bank which is not on that list if the bank guarantee granted by the Libyan bank benefits an entity that is on that list, provided that the Libyan bank is regarded as an entity acting on behalf of the Libyan Government, which is a matter for the referring court to verify;

                              —

                              not being applicable, in the version resulting from Council Regulation (EU) No 45/2014 of 20 January 2014, where the costs payable under counter guarantee agreements must be paid by an EU bank to a Libyan bank listed in Annex III to that regulation and by an EU bank to a Libyan bank which is not on that list if the bank guarantee granted by the Libyan bank benefits an entity which is on the list, provided that those costs were paid before the entry into force of that regulation; and

                              —

                              not being applicable, either in the original version or in the version resulting from Regulation No 45/2014, where the costs payable under counter agreements must be paid by one EU bank to another EU bank.

                  3.

                  Article 9 of Regulation No 204/2011 is to be interpreted as not being applicable to payments of costs such as those due under the various agreements at issue in the main proceedings.

                  4.

                  Article 17(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 must be interpreted as being applicable to the counter guarantee costs payable by one EU bank to another EU bank in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the final calculation of the costs is made after the entry into force of that regulation.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


title: Case C-626/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Roma (Italy) lodged on 3 November 2017 — Alberto Rossi and Others v Ministero della Giustizia

text:
               12.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Roma (Italy) lodged on 3 November 2017 — Alberto Rossi and Others v Ministero della Giustizia
   (Case C-626/17)
   (2018/C 052/20)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di Pace di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Alberto Rossi and Others

      Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the applicant, as a Giudice di Pace (magistrate), by reason of his occupation, come within the definition of a ‘fixed-term worker’ for the purposes of Articles 1(3) and 7 of Directive 2003/88, (1) read in conjunction with Clause 2 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work implemented by Directive 1999/70 (2) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

               2.

               If Question 1 above is answered in the affirmative, may an ordinary or ‘togato’ judge [a career judge engaged on a permanent basis and salaried] be regarded as a comparable permanent worker in respect of a ‘Giudice di Pace’ fixed-term worker for the purposes of the application of Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work implemented by Directive 1999/70?

               3.

               If Question 2 above is answered in the affirmative, do the differences between the procedure for the permanent recruitment of ordinary judges and the selection procedures, laid down by statute, for the fixed-term recruitment of Giudici di Pace constitute an objective ground, within the meaning of Clause 4(1) and/or (4) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work implemented by Directive 1999/70, justifying a refusal to apply: (1) — as in the recent interpretation of ‘vital law’ by the Combined Chambers of the Corte di cassazione (Court of Cassation) in judgment No 13721/2017 and by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) in Opinion No 464/2017 of 8 April 2017 — to Giudici di Pace, such as the applicant fixed-term worker, the same employment conditions as those applied to comparable permanent ordinary judges; and (2) preventive measures and measures imposing penalties in respect of abusive use of fixed-term contracts, as referred to in Clause 5 of the framework agreement implemented by Directive 1999/70 and the national implementing provision in Article 5(4bis) of Legislative Decree No 368/2001, in the absence of any fundamental principle under domestic law or any constitutional rule that could justify either discrimination as regards employment conditions or an absolute prohibition on engaging Giudici di Pace on permanent contracts, also taking into account the previous domestic provision (Article 1 of Law No 217/1974), which had already provided that the employment conditions of giudici onorari should be equivalent to those of ordinary judges and that there should no longer be recourse to successive fixed-term employment contracts for such judges?

               4.

               In any event, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, is it contrary to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to the EU-law concept of an independent and impartial tribunal for a Giudice di Pace, who has an interest in the case before him being resolved in favour of the applicant who, as his sole form of employment performs identical judicial functions, to stand in the place of the tribunal established by statute as having jurisdiction because of the refusal by the highest domestic judicial body — the Combined Chambers of the Court of Cassation — to grant effective protection for the rights claimed, thus obliging the tribunal established as competent by statute to decline jurisdiction, when requested, for the purpose of recognising the right claimed, notwithstanding the fact that the right in question — like the right to paid leave at issue in the main proceedings — is enshrined in primary and secondary EU law in a situation in which ‘Community’ law is directly and vertically applicable to the Member State in question? In the event that the Court of Justice should find that there is an infringement of Article 47 of the Charter, what domestic remedies are available in order to avoid a situation in which infringement of a provision of primary EU law also involves an absolute refusal under domestic law to protect fundamental rights guaranteed by EU law in the particular circumstances of the present case?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

      (2)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case T-609/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — PB v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Competition notice EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the Luxembourg site — Refusal of admission to the tests at the assessment centre — Limitation of the choice of second language to a restricted number of official languages of the European Union — Objection of illegality — Manifest error of assessment — Liability — Non-pecuniary harm)

text:
               12.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — PB v Commission
   (Case T-609/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Competition notice EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) - Doctors for the Luxembourg site - Refusal of admission to the tests at the assessment centre - Limitation of the choice of second language to a restricted number of official languages of the European Union - Objection of illegality - Manifest error of assessment - Liability - Non-pecuniary harm))
   (2018/C 052/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg) of 28 September 2015 not to admit the applicant to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 28 September 2015 by which the selection board for Open Competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg) refused to admit PB to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-39/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-45/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2018 by Claire Staelen against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 28 November 2017 in Case T-217/11 REV, Staelen v European Ombudsman

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/23

         Appeal brought on 22 January 2018 by Claire Staelen against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 28 November 2017 in Case T-217/11 REV, Staelen v European Ombudsman
   (Case C-45/18 P)
   (2018/C 104/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside order T-217/11 REV;

               —

               declare admissible the application for revision of judgment T-217/11;

               —

               order the respondent to pay all costs in relation to all of the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant advances several grounds of appeal alleging:

               —

               partial illegality of Article 169 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

               —

               infringement of Article 169(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

               —

               distortion of the facts and error of law in so far as the General Court classified the decision of 19 May 2005 simultaneously as a list of suitable candidates and as a decision extending the validity of the list of suitable candidates;

               —

               error of law in so far as the General Court held that a decision which was not notified to all of its addressees is challengeable, as well as infringement of the principle of equal treatment;

               —

               distortion of the facts and manifestly contradictory findings of the General Court concerning the respondent’s alleged lack of diligence, as well as infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations;

               —

               lack of reasoning on the decisive nature of the new facts.


title: Case C-628/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 8 November 2017 — Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów v Orange Polska S.A.

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 8 November 2017 — Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów v Orange Polska S.A.
   (Case C-628/17)
   (2018/C 104/15)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

      Respondent: Orange Polska S.A.

      Questions referred

   Is Article 8, in conjunction with Articles 9 and 2(j), of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the use of standard forms for the conclusion of distance contracts relating to the provision of telecommunications services, under which a consumer is required to make the final business decision in the presence of the courier handing over the standard-form contract (general terms and conditions), an aggressive commercial practice by a trader owing to undue influence:

               (a)

               always, where the consumer, during the courier’s visit, is unable freely to take cognisance of the content of the standard-form contract;

               (b)

               only where the consumer has not previously and individually received all standard forms (for example, at his e-mail address or home address), even if he himself had the opportunity, prior to the courier’s visit, to take cognisance of their content on the trader’s website;

               (c)

               only if additional findings were to point to unfair actions on the part of the trader, or on his behalf, for the purpose of restricting the consumer’s decision-making freedom in regard to the business decision which he has to make?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.


title: Case T-412/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Larko v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Sale of certain assets operated by an undertaking or belonging to that undertaking in the context of a privatisation programme — No economic continuity — Action by the beneficiary of the aid — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Larko v Commission
   (Case T-412/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Sale of certain assets operated by an undertaking or belonging to that undertaking in the context of a privatisation programme - No economic continuity - Action by the beneficiary of the aid - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 104/30)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Dryllerakis, N. Korogiannakis, I. Soufleros, E. Triantafyllou, G. Psaroudakis and E. Rantos, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, É. Gippini Fournier and B. Stromsky, Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 1805 of 27 March 2014 on the State aid SA.37954 (2013/N) — Greece — Sale of certain assets of Larco General Mining & Metallurgical Company S.A. (OJ 2014 C 156, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.


title: Case C-632/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich (Poland) lodged on 9 November 2017 — Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności (PKO) Bank Polski S.A. v Jacek Michalski

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich (Poland) lodged on 9 November 2017 — Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności (PKO) Bank Polski S.A. v Jacek Michalski
   (Case C-632/17)
   (2018/C 104/16)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności (PKO) Bank Polski S.A.

      Defendant: Jacek Michalski

      Question referred

   Must the provisions of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) and in particular Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof, and the provisions of Directive 2008/48/EC of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (2) and in particular Article 10 and Article 22(1) thereof, be interpreted as precluding the pursuit of a claim by a bank (the creditor) against a consumer (the debtor) on the basis of a banking ledger excerpt, signed by persons authorised to make statements regarding the bank’s property rights and obligations and bearing the bank’s stamp, and on the basis of proof that a request for payment had been submitted to the debtor in writing, in the context of an order-for-payment procedure as defined in Article 485 § 3 et seq. of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.


title: Case C-686/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2017 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V. v Prime Champ Deutschland Pilzkulturen GmbH

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2017 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V. v Prime Champ Deutschland Pilzkulturen GmbH
   (Case C-686/17)
   (2018/C 104/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V.

      Defendant: Prime Champ Deutschland Pilzkulturen GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of the definition of the term ‘country of origin’ in Article 113a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (1) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, (2) are the definitions in Article 23 et seq. of the Community Customs Code (3) and Article 60 of the Union Customs Code (4) decisive?

               2.

               Do cultivated mushrooms which are harvested in a national territory have their origin in that territory pursuant to Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and Article 60(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 if substantial production steps [take] place in other Member States of the European Union and the cultivated mushrooms have been transported to the relevant national territory only three days or fewer prior to the first harvest?

               3.

               Is the prohibition on the making of misleading statements under Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13/EC (5) and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (6) to be applied to the indication of origin that is required under Article 113a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013?

               4.

               Is it permitted to append additional, explanatory elements to the indication of origin prescribed under Article 113a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 in order to counteract a misleading statement prohibited under Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13/EC and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1169/2011?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation); OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1.

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007; OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code; OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code; OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.

      (5)  Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs; OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.

      (6)  Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004; OJ 2011 L 304, p. 18.


title: Case C-699/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 December 2017 — Allianz Vorsorgekasse AG

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 December 2017 — Allianz Vorsorgekasse AG
   (Case C-699/17)
   (2018/C 104/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Allianz Vorsorgekasse AG

      Participating parties: Bundestheater-Holding GmbH, Burgtheater GmbH, Wiener Staatsoper GmbH, Volksoper Wien GmbH, ART for ART Theaterservice GmbH, fair-finance Vorsorgekasse AG

      Question referred

   Are the provisions of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement (1) and/or Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and the obligation of transparency which derive from them in respect of public procurement, applicable to the conclusion of contracts by a contracting authority with company provident funds in respect of the management and investment of contributions in cases where the conclusion of the contract and hence the choice of provident fund requires the approval of the workforce or its representatives and can therefore not be done by the contracting authority alone?

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


title: Case T-235/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Pari Pharma v EMA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra — Decision to grant a third party access to the documents — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — No general presumption of confidentiality)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Pari Pharma v EMA
   (Case T-235/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - No general presumption of confidentiality))
   (2018/C 104/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pari Pharma GmbH (Starnberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Epping and W. Rehmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, A. Rusanov, S. Marino, A. Spina and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Traband, acting as Agents) and Novartis Europharm Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision EMA/271043/2015 of the EMA of 24 April 2015, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to documents containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Pari Pharma GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), including those relating to the application for interim measures;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders Novartis Europharm Ltd to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.


title: Case T-457/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Schwamm & Cie. (Le Coq de France) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the European Union word mark Le Coq de France — Earlier national figurative mark le coq — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 2017/1001])

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Schwamm & Cie. (Le Coq de France)
   (Case T-457/16) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the European Union word mark Le Coq de France - Earlier national figurative mark le coq - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 2017/1001]))
   (2018/C 104/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Schwamm & Cie. mbH (Saarbrucken, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 June 2016 (Case R 1786/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Schwamm & Cie. And Aldi Einkauf.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


title: Case T-477/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v ECHA (Public supply contracts — Tender procedure — Provisions of information technology (IT) services for the applications of the ECHA — Rejection of an offer by a tenderer — Award criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest errors of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v ECHA
   (Case T-477/15) (1)

   ((Public supply contracts - Tender procedure - Provisions of information technology (IT) services for the applications of the ECHA - Rejection of an offer by a tenderer - Award criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest errors of assessment - Non-contractual liability))
   (2018/C 104/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri, D. Papadopoulou and C.-N. Dede, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented initially by: E. Maurage, W. Broere and M. Heikkilä, and subsequently by W. Broere and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck and A.M. Vandromme, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of the decisions notified to the applicants by letter of 25 June 2015, by which the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) rejected their tender for the award of contract No ECHA/2014/86 for the provision of IT services for the IT applications of ECHA and awarded that contract to another bidder and, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU, for compensation for the damage which the applicants allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.


title: Case C-723/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 29 December 2017 — Lies Craeynest and Others v Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer; other party: Belgische Staat

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 29 December 2017 — Lies Craeynest and Others v Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer; other party: Belgische Staat
   (Case C-723/17)
   (2018/C 104/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Lies Craeynest, Cristina Lopez Devaux, Frédéric Mertens, Stefan Vandermeulen, Karin De Schepper, ClientEarth

      Defendants: Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer

      Other party: Belgische Staat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 4(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2008/50/EC (1) of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, be interpreted as meaning that, when it is alleged that a Member State has not sited the sampling points in a zone in accordance with the criteria set out in point B.1.(a) of Annex III to Directive 2008/50, it is for the national courts, on application by individuals who are directly affected by the exceedance of the limit values referred to in Article 13(1) of that directive, to examine whether the sampling points were sited in accordance with those criteria and, if they were not, to take all necessary measures against the national authority, such as an order, with a view to ensuring that the sampling points are sited in accordance with those criteria?

               2.

               Is a limit value within the meaning of Article 13(1) and Article 23(1) of [Directive 2008/50/EC] exceeded in the case where an exceedance of a limit value with an averaging period of one calendar year, as laid down in Annex XI to that directive, has been established on the basis of the measurement results from one single sampling point within the meaning of Article 7 of that directive, or does such an exceedance occur only when this becomes apparent from the average of the measurement results from all sampling points in a particular zone within the meaning of Directive 2008/50?

      (1)  Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).


title: Case T-506/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Greece v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Greece — Flat-rate financial corrections — Area-related aid scheme — Concept of permanent pasture — Conditions for imposing a flat-rate correction of 25 % — Communication under Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 — Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Cross-compliance — Monitoring of statutory management requirements — Monitoring of good agricultural and environmental conditions — Duty to state reasons — Deduction of a correction annulled by a judgment of the General Court)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-506/15) (1)

   ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Greece - Flat-rate financial corrections - Area-related aid scheme - Concept of permanent pasture - Conditions for imposing a flat-rate correction of 25 % - Communication under Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Cross-compliance - Monitoring of statutory management requirements - Monitoring of good agricultural and environmental conditions - Duty to state reasons - Deduction of a correction annulled by a judgment of the General Court))
   (2018/C 104/35)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou, O. Tsirkinidou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


title: Case T-775/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO — Krasnyiy oktyabr (Representation of a crayfish) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a crayfish — Earlier international registration of the figurative mark РАКОВЫЕ ШЕЙКИ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO — Krasnyiy oktyabr (Representation of a crayfish)
   (Case T-775/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a crayfish - Earlier international registration of the figurative mark РАКОВЫЕ ШЕЙКИ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 104/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: R. Žabolienė and I. Lukauskienė, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by O. Spuhler, M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 (Case R 2419/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Moscow Confectionary Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ and Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.


title: Case C-1/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 2 January 2018 — SIA Oriola Rīga v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 2 January 2018 — SIA Oriola Rīga v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-1/18)
   (2018/C 104/23)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA Oriola Rīga

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where the imported goods are medicines, when the customs value of the imported goods is determined in accordance with Article 30(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 151(4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, must it be considered that similar goods are those medicines whose active ingredient and the quantity thereof are the same (or similar) or, rather, in order to identify similar goods, must account be taken of market position as well, that is to say, the popularity and demand, of the imported medicine in question and of its producer?

               2.

               When the customs value of the imported goods is determined in accordance with Article 30(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, may the period of 90 days fixed in Article 152(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code be applied flexibly?

               3.

               If that period may be applied flexibly, must priority be given to data on transactions effected closer to the time when the goods to be valued were imported and involving identical or similar goods that are sold in sufficient quantities to enable the unit price to be determined or, on the contrary, to transactions less close in time but actually involving the imported goods?

               4.

               When the customs value of the imported goods is determined in accordance with Article 30(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, have the discounts granted, which determined the price at which the goods were in fact sold, to be applied?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1).


title: Case C-433/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 January 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Milk and milk products — Additional levy on milk — Tax years 1995/1996 to 2008/2009 — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Articles 79, 80 and 83 — Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 — Articles 15 and 17 — Infringement — Lack of effective payment of the levy within the time limits prescribed — Failure of recovery in the event of non-payment of the levy)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 January 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-433/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Tax years 1995/1996 to 2008/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Articles 79, 80 and 83 - Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 - Articles 15 and 17 - Infringement - Lack of effective payment of the levy within the time limits prescribed - Failure of recovery in the event of non-payment of the levy))
   (2018/C 104/02)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, D. Nardi and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: represented by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               By failing to ensure that the additional levy payable in respect of quantities produced in Italy in excess of the national quota, from the first year in which the additional levy was in fact applied in Italy (1995/1996) until the last year in which there was surplus production in Italy (2008/2009),

                           —

                           was in fact allocated to the individual producers which had contributed to each of the production overruns and

                           —

                           was paid at the appropriate time, upon their being given notification of the amount payable, by the purchasers or the producers in the case of direct sales, or

                           —

                           where the levy was not paid within the period prescribed, was registered and, where possible, recovered by way of enforcement from those purchasers or producers,

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on it by Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector, Articles 79, 80 and 83 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), and, with regard to the Commission’s implementing provisions, Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products, Article 11(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Regulation No 3950/92, and, finally, Articles 15 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Regulation No 1788/2003, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 of 4 October 2006;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case T-17/18: Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Delfant Hoylaerts v Commission

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/44

         Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Delfant Hoylaerts v Commission
   (Case T-17/18)
   (2018/C 104/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Isabelle Delfant Hoylaerts (Montredon-des-Corbières, France) (represented by: E. Conquet, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s Rejection Decision of 21 March 2017;

               —

               annul the Commission’s implicit Rejection Decision of 20 October 2017;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs relating to the medico-educational institution from 20 October 2017;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to Ms Delfant Hoylaerts EUR 3 000 in damages as compensation for the financial and non-material losses suffered;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs and to pay to Ms Delfant Hoylaerts EUR 3 000 in respect of non-recoverable expenses.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, the provisions of which have been adopted by the joint rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Union, in particular Article 20, and by the Guide to Commission assistance for disabled children of staff entitled under the Staff Regulations.
   According to the applicant, the Commission infringed the above provisions by adopting the decision to refuse to bear costs relating to a medico-educational institution (‘MEI’) for her disabled child. In that respect, she submits that that decision is based on a purely administrative misunderstanding and that the legal basis relied on by the Commission is lacking.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the unfair conduct on the part of the Commission has serious consequences in that the Commission is incapable of taking sole responsibility for the costs of the MEI where the MEI is essential for her child. Thus, her psychological and financial circumstances have been exacerbated by the fault on the Commission’s part.


title: Case T-794/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (Ice cream cornet packaging) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an ice cream cornet — Earlier international registration designating Bulgaria — Ground for invalidity — Use in the subsequent design of a distinctive sign the holder of which has the right to prohibit such use — Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 — Duty of diligence — Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (Ice cream cornet packaging)
   (Case T-794/16) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an ice cream cornet - Earlier international registration designating Bulgaria - Ground for invalidity - Use in the subsequent design of a distinctive sign the holder of which has the right to prohibit such use - Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 - Duty of diligence - Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002))
   (2018/C 104/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Şehitkamil Gaziantep, Turkey) (represented by: T. Tsenova, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Elka Zaharieva (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Kostov, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2016 (Case R 1144/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret and Mrs Zaharieva.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 September 2016 (Case R 1144/2015-3);

               2.

               Grants the application for a declaration that the design registered under number 002343244-0001 is invalid;

               3.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

               4.

               Orders Mrs Elka Zaharieva to bear her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-518/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — France v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Metropolitan France’s rural development programme — Rural development support measures — Areas with natural handicaps — Flat-rate financial correction — Expenditure incurred by France — On-the-spot controls — Loading criterion — Counting of animals — Increase in the flat-rate correction due to the recurrence of failure — Procedural safeguards)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — France v Commission
   (Case T-518/15) (1)

   ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Metropolitan France’s rural development programme - Rural development support measures - Areas with natural handicaps - Flat-rate financial correction - Expenditure incurred by France - On-the-spot controls - Loading criterion - Counting of animals - Increase in the flat-rate correction due to the recurrence of failure - Procedural safeguards))
   (2018/C 104/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially G. de Bergues, D. Colas, R. Coesme and A. Daly, then D. Colas, R. Coesme and A. Daly, finally D. Colas, R. Coesme, S. Horrenberger and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Lewis and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially M. Sampol Pucurull, then V. Ester Casas, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it applies a flat-rate correction increased by 10 % on the ground that the failure alleged of the French authorities in the field of the counting of animals was recurrent and had not been subject to improvements carried out by those authorities;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case T-21/18: Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Poland v Commission

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/45

         Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-21/18)
   (2018/C 104/58)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2017) 7263) (OJ 2017 L 292, p. 61), in so far as it excludes from EU financing the net amounts of EUR 48 317 806,79 and EUR 26 638 201,22 in expenditure incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (1) through the application of a financial correction based on incorrect findings of fact and an incorrect interpretation of the law, despite the fact that the expenditure was effected by the Republic of Poland in conformity with EU law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 through the application of a flat-rate correction which was flagrantly excessive in relation to the risk of potential financial damage to the EU budget.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU by reason of insufficient substantiation of the correction applied.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549), as amended.


title: Case T-795/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ v Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (CRABS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark CRABS — Earlier international registration of the figurative mark РАКОВЫЕ ШЕЙКИ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ v Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (CRABS)
   (Case T-795/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark CRABS - Earlier international registration of the figurative mark РАКОВЫЕ ШЕЙКИ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 104/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: O. Spuhler, M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by R. Žabolienė and I. Lukauskienė, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 (Case R 2507/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Moscow Confectionary Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ and Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


title: Case C-179/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato) — F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 101 TFEU — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Medicinal products — Directive 2001/83/EC — Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 — Allegations of risks associated with the use of a medicinal product for a treatment not covered by its marketing authorisation (off-label) — Definition of relevant market — Ancillary restriction — Restriction of competition by object — Exemption)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato) — F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
   (Case C-179/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Medicinal products - Directive 2001/83/EC - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Allegations of risks associated with the use of a medicinal product for a treatment not covered by its marketing authorisation (off-label) - Definition of relevant market - Ancillary restriction - Restriction of competition by object - Exemption))
   (2018/C 104/03)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Roche SpA, Novartis AG, Novartis Farma SpA

      Defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Associazione Italiana delle Unità Dedicate Autonome Private di Day Surgery e dei Centri di Chirurgia Ambulatoriale (Aiudapds), Società Oftalmologica Italiana (SOI) — Associazione Medici Oculisti Italiani (AMOI), Regione Emilia-Romagna, Altroconsumo, Regione Lombardia, Coordinamento delle associazioni per la tutela dell’ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e consumatori (Codacons), Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the application of that article, a national competition authority may include in the relevant market, in addition to the medicinal products authorised for the treatment of the diseases concerned, another medicinal product whose marketing authorisation does not cover that treatment but which is used for that purpose and is thus actually substitutable with the former. In order to determine whether such a relationship of substitutability exists, the competition authority must, in so far as conformity of the product at issue with the applicable provisions governing the manufacture or the marketing of that product has been examined by the competent authorities or courts, take account of the outcome of that examination by assessing any effects it may have on the structure of supply and demand.

               2.

               Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an arrangement put in place between the parties to a licensing agreement regarding the exploitation of a medicinal product which, in order to reduce competitive pressure on the use of that product for the treatment of given diseases, is designed to restrict the conduct of third parties promoting the use of another medicinal product for the treatment of those diseases, does not fall outside the application of that provision on the ground that the arrangement is ancillary to that agreement.

               3.

               Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an arrangement put in place between two undertakings marketing two competing products, which concerns the dissemination, in a context of scientific uncertainty, to the European Medicines Agency, healthcare professionals and the general public of misleading information relating to adverse reactions resulting from the use of one of those medicinal products for the treatment of diseases not covered by the marketing authorisation of that product, with a view to reducing the competitive pressure resulting from such use on the use of the other product, constitutes a restriction of competition ‘by object’ for the purposes of that provision.

               4.

               Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that such an arrangement cannot be exempt under Article 101(3) TFEU.

      (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Case T-22/18: Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Bulgaria v Commission

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/46

         Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Bulgaria v Commission
   (Case T-22/18)
   (2018/C 104/59)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: E. Petranova and L Zacharieva)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2017) 7263), in so far as concerns budget item 6711, which excludes from financing by the European Commission, under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), certain expenses of the Republic of Bulgaria in the amount of EUR 11 685 774,48, with a financial impact of EUR 11 412 865,79, after deduction of EUR 272 908,69;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               Grounds concerning amounts excluded from financing by the European Union on the basis of deficiency in key control ‘Sufficient quality of on-the-spot checks’ and deficiency in key control ‘Adequate verification of payment claims’; on the basis of deficiency in key control ‘Appropriate evaluation of reasonableness of costs’ — expenditure related to direct purchases; on the basis of deficiency in key control ‘Appropriate evaluation of reasonableness of costs’ — expenditure related to evaluation committee’:

                           —

                           Infringement of the conformity clearance procedure under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and of Article 34 of Implementing Regulation No 908/2014 in connection with the addition by the Commission of new grounds in support of its findings on the quality of on-the-spot checks;

                           —

                           Infringement of the principle of legal certainty in connection with the lack of clear criteria and instructions concerning the sufficient quality of the on-the-spot checks;

                           —

                           Infringement of the principle of sound financial management and the clearance procedure under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 in connection with the application of unjustified financial corrections;

                           —

                           Infringement of the conformity clearance procedure under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections in connection with the financial correction applied under measure No 311 for the financial years 2013, 2014 and 2015;

                           —

                           Infringement of the of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections in connection with the application of the amount of the financial correction which is not proportionate to the actual risk of financial harm caused to the European Union;

                           —

                           Infringement of the conformity clearance procedure under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections concerning the application of the financial corrections in connection with the sufficient quality of the on-the-spot checks;

                           —

                           Infringement of Article 34(6) of Implementing Regulation No 908/2014, Article 12(8) of Delegated Regulation No 907/2014, of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections and of the principle of proportionality in connection with the application of corrections in respect of all expenditure for which reimbursement has been requested;

                           —

                           Infringement of the conformity clearance procedure under Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections and of the principle of proportionality in connection with the definition of the ground for applying corrections in respect of projects in the period under review;

               2.

               Grounds solely concerning amounts excluded from financing by the European Union on the basis of deficiency in key control ‘Appropriate evaluation of reasonableness of costs’ — expenditure related to evaluation committee;

                           —

                           Infringement of the conformity clearance procedure under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013, of Article 12 of Delegated Regulation No 907/2014 and of the principle of legal certainty in connection with the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections concerning the application of the methodology for calculating the financial corrections;

                           —

                           Infringement of the principle of proportionality in connection with the amount of the financial corrections applied by the Commission.


title: Case C-3/18 P: Appeal brought on 2 January 2018 by Confédération européenne des associations d’horlogers-réparateurs (CEAHR) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2017 in Case T-712/14: Confédération européenne des associations d’horlogers-réparateurs (CEAHR) v European Commission

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/19

         Appeal brought on 2 January 2018 by Confédération européenne des associations d’horlogers-réparateurs (CEAHR) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2017 in Case T-712/14: Confédération européenne des associations d’horlogers-réparateurs (CEAHR) v European Commission
   (Case C-3/18 P)
   (2018/C 104/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Confédération européenne des associations d’horlogers-réparateurs (CEAHR) (represented by: P. A. Benczek, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SA, Rolex, SA, The Swatch Group SA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the operative part of the Judgment of the General Court; and

               —

               annul the Commission Decision of 29 July 2014 in case AT.39097 — Watch Repair;

               —

               in the alternative, refer these proceedings back to the General Court for further consideration;

               —

               order the Commission and interveners to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of CEAHR, relating to both the proceedings and first instance and to any cost arising from this appeal;

               —

               in the alternative, order the interveners to bear their own cost relating to the proceedings at first instance and any costs arising from this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its first ground of appeal, the appellant argues that the General Court erred in law by drawing an analogy between the assessment of selective distributions systems in the case-law of this Court and the proper assessment of the selective repair system at issue in this case.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant argues that the General Court made a series of errors of law and assessment in reaching the conclusion that the selective repair systems and refusals to supply at issue in this case is justified and proportionate. The appellant submits that the General Court manifestly erred in its conclusion that the Commission was entitled to conclude that Prestige Watches are complex and that this justifies the selective repair system and refusal to supply at issue in this case. The appellants submits further that the General Court manifestly erred in its conclusion that the Commission was entitled to conclude that there is a risk of counterfeiting of Prestige Watches that justifies the selective repair system and refusal to supply at issue in this case. The General Court manifestly erred in its conclusion that the Commission was entitled to conclude that it was likely that the conditions imposed by the Watch Manufacturers do not go beyond what it necessary.
   By its third and fourth grounds of appeal, the appellant challenges the General Court’s manifestly flawed assessment of the consequence of the refusal to supply spare parts on the existence of effective competition on the markets for the repair and maintenance of the relevant watches; and the related conclusion that there was a low likelihood of establishing an abuse of dominance in this case. The appellant submits the General Court erred in its conclusion that there is competition between authorized repairers and between those repairers and the manufacturers’ in-house repair centers.
   By its fifth grounds of appeal, the appellant argues that the General Court violated procedural rights by not admitting the appellant to submit responses to interventions after having missed a deadline due to extraordinary circumstances and by refusing to reopen the hearing following appellant’s request to present new evidence.
   By its sixth ground of appeal, the appellant argues that the General Court failed to exercise its discretion in determining whether the interveners are to bear their own cost incurred during the proceedings of the first instance.


title: Case T-852/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Access Info Europe v European Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — EU-Turkey statements of 8 and 18 March 2016 — Implementation by the European Union or by the Member States of the measures concerned — Documents drawn up or received by the legal service of an institution — Legal advice — Analyses of the legality of the measures provided for in connection with the implementation of the EU-Turkey statement of 18 March 2016 — Refusal to grant access — Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in respect of international relations — Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings — Exception relating to the protection of legal advice)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Access Info Europe v European Commission
   (Case T-852/16) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - EU-Turkey statements of 8 and 18 March 2016 - Implementation by the European Union or by the Member States of the measures concerned - Documents drawn up or received by the legal service of an institution - Legal advice - Analyses of the legality of the measures provided for in connection with the implementation of the EU-Turkey statement of 18 March 2016 - Refusal to grant access - Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in respect of international relations - Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings - Exception relating to the protection of legal advice))
   (2018/C 104/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Access Info Europe (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6030 final of 19 September 2016 confirming the refusal to grant the applicant access to documents from the Commission’s Legal Service which purportedly concern the legality of the measures adopted by the European Union and its Member States in implementing the actions set out in the statement of the Heads of State or Government of the European Union of 18 March 2016, adopted following their meeting with the Turkish Prime Minister on the same day.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Access Info Europe to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Case C-18/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 January 2018 — Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 January 2018 — Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited
   (Case C-18/18)
   (2018/C 104/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek

      Defendant: Facebook Ireland Limited

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (1) generally preclude any of the obligations listed below of a host provider which has not expeditiously removed illegal information, specifically not just this illegal information within the meaning of Article 14(1)(a) of the Directive, but also other identically worded items of information:

                           a.a.

                           worldwide?

                           a.b.

                           in the relevant Member State?

                           a.c.

                           of the relevant user worldwide?

                           a.d.

                           of the relevant user in the relevant Member State?

               2.

               In so far as Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does this also apply in each case for information with an equivalent meaning?

               3.

               Does this also apply for information with an equivalent meaning as soon as the operator has become aware of this circumstance?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1.


title: Case C-267/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of Gibraltar) — The Queen on the application of Albert Buhagiar and Others v Minister for Justice (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Territorial scope of EU law — Article 355(3) TFEU — Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Adjustments to the Treaties — Article 29 — Point 4 of Section I of Annex I — Exclusion of Gibraltar from the customs territory of the European Union — Implications — Directive 91/477/EEC — Article 1(4) — Article 12(2) — Annex II — European firearms pass — Hunting and target shooting activities — Applicability to the territory of Gibraltar — Obligation to transpose — No such obligation — Validity)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of Gibraltar) — The Queen on the application of Albert Buhagiar and Others v Minister for Justice
   (Case C-267/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Territorial scope of EU law - Article 355(3) TFEU - Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Adjustments to the Treaties - Article 29 - Point 4 of Section I of Annex I - Exclusion of Gibraltar from the customs territory of the European Union - Implications - Directive 91/477/EEC - Article 1(4) - Article 12(2) - Annex II - European firearms pass - Hunting and target shooting activities - Applicability to the territory of Gibraltar - Obligation to transpose - No such obligation - Validity))
   (2018/C 104/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of Gibraltar

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: The Queen on the application of Albert Buhagiar, Wayne Piri, Stephanie Piri, Arthur Taylor, Henry Bonifacio, Colin Tomlinson, Darren Sheriff

      Defendant: Minister for Justice

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 29 of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Adjustments to the Treaties, read in conjunction with point 4 of Section I of Annex I thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that Article 12(2) of Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, as amended by Directive 2008/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008, read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof and Annex II thereto, does not apply on the territory of Gibraltar.

               2.

               Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Directive 91/477, as amended by Directive 2008/51.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.