title: Case T-388/18: Action brought on 27 June 2018 — WV v EEAS

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/34

      Action brought on 27 June 2018 — WV v EEAS
      (Case T-388/18)
      (2018/C 352/41)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

         Defendant: European External Action Service

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  declare the present application admissible and well founded;

                              —

                              and accordingly, after first ordering the defendant, pursuant to Article 89(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, which provides for ‘measures of organisation of procedure’, to produce all the material and documents relating to the present case, including the mandate and findings of the internal security investigation carried out by the Appointing Authority; all EEAS documents and decisions produced internally in connection with the accusations alleging extraction of documents and possible transmission of information by the applicant to a third State (Israel/Turkey), exact dates, the information allegedly shared and concrete evidence, the information sent to and the response from its security service; the internal documents and/or decisions apparently produced or taken in connection with the incident of 27 July 2016 and, in particular, a note from the Secretary General of the EEAS concerning the applicant’s exclusion from the Turkey Division; the email sent by Ms [X] in September 2015 to Mr [Y] which apparently referred to ‘serious problems relating predominantly to her conduct’; information relating to the nature of the various transfers to which she was subject in order to clarify whether the transfers were made on the basis of her post and/or additional posts; the terms of reference of the national experts made available to the EEAS Turkey Division, reflecting the agreement concluded with individual Member States in June 2015 in view of the establishment of that division; the minutes of the meeting of 18 May 2017 between the applicant, a representative of the Staff Committee and the appointing authority; the email exchanges which took place on 10 July 2017 between Mr [Z] and the Head of the EU Delegation to Turkey;

                              —

                              annul the implied decision rejecting the request for assistance based on Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, made on 4 September 2017;

                              —

                              annul the decision of 28 March 2018, reference Ares(2018)1705593, served on the same date, by which the Appointing Authority rejected the applicant’s complaint lodged on 29 November 2017, under reference R/510/17, against the implied decision rejecting the request for assistance based on Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;

                              —

                              order the defendant to pay all costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging breach of the duty to afford assistance and to have regard for the interests of members of staff, of Articles 1e(2), 12, 12a, 22b, 24, 25 and 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), of the principle of good administration, of Articles 1 and 2 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, and of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
      In the context of that plea, the applicant also alleges infringement of, inter alia, Articles 41, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and of the rights of defence, as well as abuse of rights and abuse of process, in addition to the manifest breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and the equality of arms.
      The applicant alleges lastly, in the context of that plea, breach of the principle that requires the administration to adopt a decision solely on the basis of legally permissible grounds, by which is meant grounds that are relevant and not vitiated by any manifest error of assessment, of fact or of law, and breach of the principle of proportionality, the adversarial principle, and the principles of sound administration and legal certainty, in addition to infringement of 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. 1).
      Thus, by the single plea raised, the applicant claims that, in adopting the contested decision in the conditions complained of and subsequently rejecting the applicant’s complaint, the appointing authority manifestly failed correctly to interpret and apply the provisions of the Staff Regulations and the abovementioned principles since its decision was based on grounds that are incorrect both in fact and in law and consequently placed the applicant in an unlawful administrative situation, with a complete lack of correspondence between the facts established and the rejection of the application for assistance.


title: Case C-485/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 24 July 2018 — Groupe Lactalis v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/25

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 24 July 2018 — Groupe Lactalis v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
      (Case C-485/18)
      (2018/C 352/30)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Groupe Lactalis

         Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 26 of Regulation No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011, (1) which provides, inter alia, for the Commission to submit reports to the European Parliament and the Council regarding the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for milk and milk used as an ingredient, be regarded as having specifically harmonised that matter within the meaning of Article 38(1) of that regulation and does it preclude Member States from adopting measures requiring additional mandatory particulars on the basis of Article 39 of that regulation?

                  2.

                  In the event that the national measures are justified on grounds of the protection of consumers in the light of Article 39(1), should the two criteria laid down in Article 39(2) concerning, first, the proven link between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance and, second, the evidence that the majority of consumers attach significant value to the provision of that information be read in combination, and, in particular, can the examination of the proven link be based solely on subjective elements relating to the value that the majority of consumers attach to the link between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance?

                  3.

                  To the extent to which the qualities of the food appear to include all the factors contributing to the quality of the food, can considerations relating to the resilience of the food to transportation and the risk of deterioration during journeys be taken into account when examining whether there is a proven link between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance for the purposes of the application of Article 39(2)?

                  4.

                  Does the assessment of the conditions laid down in Article 39 presuppose that the qualities of the food are regarded as being unique on account of its origin or provenance or as being guaranteed by reason of that origin or provenance and, in the latter case, notwithstanding the harmonisation of health and environmental standards applicable within the European Union, can the indication of origin or provenance be more precise than the indications ‘EU’ or ‘Non-EU’?

         (1)  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-59/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Château du Grand Bois SCI v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Market in wine — Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 — Support for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards — Unannounced on-the-spot checks — Powers of control officials — Whether officials may enter agricultural land without having obtained the vine grower’s permission)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/6

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Château du Grand Bois SCI v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)
      (Case C-59/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Market in wine - Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 - Support for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards - Unannounced on-the-spot checks - Powers of control officials - Whether officials may enter agricultural land without having obtained the vine grower’s permission))
      (2018/C 352/07)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Château du Grand Bois SCI

         Respondent: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 76, 78 and 81 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector, must be interpreted as not authorising officials carrying out an on-the-spot check to enter agricultural land without having obtained the vine grower’s permission.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.


title: Case C-486/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 July 2018 — RE v Praxair MRC

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/26

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 July 2018 — RE v Praxair MRC
      (Case C-486/18)
      (2018/C 352/31)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de cassation

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: RE

         Defendant: Praxair MRC

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Are Clauses 2.4 and 2.6 of the framework agreement on parental leave, annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 concerning the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the application to an employee who is on part-time parental leave at the time of his dismissal of a provision of domestic law, such as Article L. 3123-13 of the Labour Code, applicable at the material time, under which ‘the compensation payment for dismissal and retirement benefit payable to an employee who has worked on both a full-time and part-time basis for the same undertaking shall be calculated in proportion to the periods of each of those types of employment completed since the employee joined the undertaking’?

                  2.

                  Are Clauses 2.4 and 2.6 of the framework agreement, annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 concerning the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, to be interpreted as precluding the application to an employee who is on part-time parental leave at the time of his dismissal of a provision of domestic law, such as Article R. 1233-32 of the Labour Code, under which, during a period of redeployment leave which exceeds the notice period, the employee is to receive a monthly payment from the employer of an amount equivalent to at least 65 % of the employee’s average gross monthly pay during the twelve months preceding the notice of dismissal, subject to the contributions referred to in Article L. 5422-9?

                  3.

                  If the answer to either of the preceding questions is in the affirmative, is Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law, such as Article L. 3123-13 of the Labour Code, applicable at the material time, and Article R. 1233-32 of that Code, insofar as a far greater number of women than men choose to take part-time parental leave and the indirect discrimination which results therefrom as regards the receipt of redundancy pay and redeployment leave allowance, which are less than those received by employees who have not taken part-time parental leave, is not justified by objective factors unrelated to any form of discrimination?

         (1)  OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.


title: Case C-329/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Gerhard Prenninger and Others v Oberösterreichische Landesregierung (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Annex II — Point 1(d) — Concept of ‘deforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use’ — Clearance of a path in a forest in connection with the construction and operation of an overhead electrical power line)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/12

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Gerhard Prenninger and Others v Oberösterreichische Landesregierung
      (Case C-329/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Annex II - Point 1(d) - Concept of ‘deforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use’ - Clearance of a path in a forest in connection with the construction and operation of an overhead electrical power line))
      (2018/C 352/15)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Gerhard Prenninger, Karl Helmberger, Franziska Zimmer, Franz Scharinger, Norbert Pühringer, Agrargemeinschaft Pettenbach, Marktgemeinde Vorchdorf, Marktgemeinde Pettenbach, Gemeinde Steinbach am Ziehberg

         Defendant: Oberösterreichische Landesregierung

         intervener: Netz Oberösterreich GmbH

         Operative part of the judgment

      Point 1(d) of Annex II to Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the clearance of a path in a forest for the purpose of the construction and operation of an overhead electrical power line, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, and for the duration of its lawful existence is covered by the concept of ‘deforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use’ within the meaning of that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


title: Joined Cases C-61/17, C-62/17 and C-72/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Miriam Bichat (C-61/17), Daniela Chlubna (C-62/17), Isabelle Walkner (C-72/17) v Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — First subparagraph of Article 2(4) — Definition of ‘undertaking controlling the employer’ — Procedures for consultation of workers — Burden of proof)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/6

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Miriam Bichat (C-61/17), Daniela Chlubna (C-62/17), Isabelle Walkner (C-72/17) v Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG
      (Joined Cases C-61/17, C-62/17 and C-72/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC - First subparagraph of Article 2(4) - Definition of ‘undertaking controlling the employer’ - Procedures for consultation of workers - Burden of proof))
      (2018/C 352/08)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Miriam Bichat (C-61/17), Daniela Chlubna (C-62/17), Isabelle Walkner (C-72/17)

         Respondent: Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

         Operative part of the judgment

      The first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘undertaking controlling the employer’ covers all undertakings linked to that employer by shareholdings in the latter or by other links in law which allow it to exercise decisive influence in the employer’s decision-making bodies and compel it to contemplate or to plan for collective redundancies.

         (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case T-391/18: Action brought on 27 June 2018 — Riesco García v Parliament

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/36

      Action brought on 27 June 2018 — Riesco García v Parliament
      (Case T-391/18)
      (2018/C 352/42)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Juan Carlos Riesco García (Rota, Spain) (represented by: M. Tey Ariza, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  grant the action brought by way of this application, and in accordance with the powers of the General Court of the European Union, for a declaration of failure to act in respect of the response received from the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 31 May 2017 to his Petition No 0741/2015 on the alleged discrimination between career civil servants and temporary civil servants as regards the difference in treatment in respect of the retirement conditions of generalist administrators of the Spanish State;

                  —

                  on the basis of the legislation at issue (Council Directive 1999/70 of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP), declare the action admissible, rule on the issue raised and, on the basis thereof, order the Spanish State to declare and immediately give effect to the right of all generalist administrators of the Spanish State to have the same or similar conditions of access to early retirement.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicant submits that, in accordance with the Spanish legislation which is the subject of the petition, some permanent (career) employees affiliated to the social security scheme, approaching voluntary retirement, are permitted to change their social security scheme, because they are permanent employees; whereas temporary employees are not permitted to do the same because they are not permanent employees.
      For the applicant, the unfounded response received from the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament to the Petition (0741/2015) is disappointing and incomprehensible. That intuition which, having declared the petition admissible, and having stated on 3 August 2016 that it was necessary to bring Spanish legislation in line with Directive 1999/70 in respect of what was sought (equal conditions of retirement), including contemplating the possibility of initiating infringement proceedings, subsequently retracted that, arguing that there were unresolved ‘factual issues’.
      Even more incomprehensible is that, if there are doubts on the issue, a reference is not made to the institution with competence to decide whether it is necessary in this case to bring national legislation in line with Directive 1999/70, namely the Court of Justice of the European Union, instead proposing to resolve that issue before the national courts, which are less, or even not at all competent to decide whether the national legislation needs to be brought in line with the European legislation.


title: Case C-435/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Halduskohus — Estonia) — Argo Kalda Mardi talu v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Direct payments — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Articles 93 and 94 — Annex II — Cross-compliance — Agricultural and environmental conditions — Minimum requirements — Implementation by a Member State — Obligation to conserve ‘burial grounds’ — Scope)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/12

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Halduskohus — Estonia) — Argo Kalda Mardi talu v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)
      (Case C-435/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Direct payments - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Articles 93 and 94 - Annex II - Cross-compliance - Agricultural and environmental conditions - Minimum requirements - Implementation by a Member State - Obligation to conserve ‘burial grounds’ - Scope))
      (2018/C 352/16)
      Language of the case: Estonian

         Referring court

      Tartu Halduskohus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Argo Kalda Mardi talu

         Defendant: Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1)

                  Article 93(1), Article 94 and Annex II to 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 must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from requiring, as a standard for good agricultural and environmental conditions referred to in that Annex II, the preservation, on an agricultural area, of cairns marked by stones, the removal of which breaches such a requirement and, consequently, the reduction of payments owed to the farmer concerned.

                  2)

                  Article 72(1)(a), Article 91(1) and (2), Article 93(1) and Article 94 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and Article 4(1)(b), (c) and (e) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements relating to good agricultural and environmental conditions, provided for by Regulation No 1306/2013 must be complied with on the whole of the agricultural holding and not solely on the agricultural area in respect of which the payment is specifically requested.

         (1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.


title: Case C-115/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Administration des douanes et des droits indirects, Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Hubert Clergeau and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 — False declarations or deceitful practices in order to secure special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals — Amendment to Regulation No 1964/82 extending the entitlement to special export refunds — Principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law — Third sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/7

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Administration des douanes et des droits indirects, Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Hubert Clergeau and Others
      (Case C-115/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 - False declarations or deceitful practices in order to secure special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals - Amendment to Regulation No 1964/82 extending the entitlement to special export refunds - Principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law - Third sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))
      (2018/C 352/09)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de cassation

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Administration des douanes et des droits indirects, Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

         Defendants: Hubert Clergeau, Jean-Luc Labrousse, Jean-Jacques Berthellemy, Alain Bouchet, Jean-Pierre Dubois, Marcel Géry, Jean-Paul Matrat, Jean-Pierre Paziot, Patrice Raillot

         Operative part of the judgment

      The principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law, enshrined in the third sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a situation in which a person is convicted on the ground that he wrongfully obtained special export refunds provided for in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 of 20 July 1982 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals, by means of deceitful practices or the making of false statements as to the nature of the goods in respect of which the refunds were requested, although, as a result of changes in those rules which occurred subsequent to the acts complained of, the goods that were exported by that person have since become eligible for those refunds.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.


title: Case C-475/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Viking Motors AS and Others v Tallinna linn, Maksu- ja Tolliamet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 401 — Domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes — Prohibition — Concept of ‘turnover tax’ — Local sales tax — Essential characteristics of VAT — None)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/13

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Viking Motors AS and Others v Tallinna linn, Maksu- ja Tolliamet
      (Case C-475/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 401 - Domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes - Prohibition - Concept of ‘turnover tax’ - Local sales tax - Essential characteristics of VAT - None))
      (2018/C 352/17)
      Language of the case: Estonian

         Referring court

      Riigikohus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Viking Motors AS, TKM Beauty Eesti OÜ, TKM King AS, Kaubamaja AS, Selver AS

         Defendants: Tallinna linn, Maksu- ja Tolliamet

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that it does not preclude the maintenance or introduction of a tax such as the sales tax at issue in the main proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case C-120/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — Administratīvā rajona tiesa v Ministru kabinets (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Support for rural development — Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 — Articles 10 to 12 — Early retirement support — National legislation providing for the transfer by inheritance of early retirement support — Legislation approved by the European Commission — Subsequent change of position — Protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/8

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — Administratīvā rajona tiesa v Ministru kabinets
      (Case C-120/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Support for rural development - Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Articles 10 to 12 - Early retirement support - National legislation providing for the transfer by inheritance of early retirement support - Legislation approved by the European Commission - Subsequent change of position - Protection of legitimate expectations))
      (2018/C 352/10)
      Language of the case: Latvian

         Referring court

      Satversmes tiesa

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Administratīvā rajona tiesa

         Defendant: Ministru kabinets

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Articles 10 to 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain regulations must be interpreted as precluding Member States, when implementing those articles, from adopting measures making it possible to transfer by inheritance support for early retirement such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

                  2.

                  The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings –– which provided for the transfer by inheritance of early retirement support and was approved by the European Commission as compatible with Regulation No 1257/1999 –– gave rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the heirs of farmers who received that support, and that a conclusion such as that mentioned in the minutes of the meeting of the European Commission Committee on Rural Development of 19 October 2011, to the effect that such support may not be passed on by inheritance, did not bring that legitimate expectation to an end.

         (1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


title: Case T-396/18: Action brought on 29 June 2018 — ITSA v Commission

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/36

      Action brought on 29 June 2018 — ITSA v Commission
      (Case T-396/18)
      (2018/C 352/43)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) (Sunbury-on-Thames, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Scanvic, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/573 of 15 December 2017 on key elements of data storage contracts to be concluded as part of a traceability system for tobacco products, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/574 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for the establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products and Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/576 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for security features applied to tobacco products.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of the WHO Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products adopted in Seoul on 12 November 2012, prohibiting the tobacco industry from being responsible for activities relating to the marking of tobacco products. In that regard, the applicant claims that, although the Protocol has not yet come into force, it has been agreed and signed by the European Union, which may not take measures that do not comply with it.
      Furthermore, it states that Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1), on the basis on which the contested regulation in the present case was adopted, can and must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Protocol referred to, regardless of the fact that that protocol does not expressly prohibit the activities at issue from being responsible for the tobacco industry.
      Finally, should such an interpretation be precluded, the Directive itself will be contrary to the Protocol and, therefore, the European Treaties.


title: Case C-122/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — David Smith v Patrick Meade, Philip Meade, FBD Insurance plc, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Third Directive 90/232/EEC — Article 1 — Liability for personal injury caused to all passengers other than the driver — Compulsory insurance — Direct effect of directives — Obligation to disapply national legislation contrary to a directive — Non-application of a contractual clause contrary to a directive)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/8

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — David Smith v Patrick Meade, Philip Meade, FBD Insurance plc, Ireland, Attorney General
      (Case C-122/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Third Directive 90/232/EEC - Article 1 - Liability for personal injury caused to all passengers other than the driver - Compulsory insurance - Direct effect of directives - Obligation to disapply national legislation contrary to a directive - Non-application of a contractual clause contrary to a directive))
      (2018/C 352/11)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Court of Appeal

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: David Smith

         Defendants: Patrick Meade, Philip Meade, FBD Insurance plc, Ireland, Attorney General

         Operative part of the judgment

      EU law, in particular Article 288 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing a dispute between private persons, which finds that it is unable to interpret the provisions of its national law that are contrary to a provision of a directive that satisfies all the conditions required for it to produce direct effect in a manner that is compatible with that provision, is not obliged, solely on the basis of EU law, to disapply those provisions of national law and a clause to be found, as a consequence of those provisions of national law, in an insurance contract.
      In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a party adversely affected by the incompatibility of national law with EU law or a person subrogated to the rights of that party could however rely on the case-law arising from the judgment of 19 November 1991, Francovich and Others (C 6/90 and C 9/90, EU:C:1991:428), in order to obtain from the Member State, if justified, compensation for any loss sustained.

         (1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


title: Case T-436/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Prigent v Commission

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/37

      Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Prigent v Commission
      (Case T-436/18)
      (2018/C 352/44)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Claude Prigent (Caudan, France) (represented by: A. Bove, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare this action admissible;

                  —

                  on the substance, declare the action well-founded in law;

                  —

                  consequently, annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 May 2018 on the basis of the principle of national solidarity as defined by the CJEU (general principle of law) and/or on the basis of Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union;

                  —

                  remit the case to the competent authority;

                  —

                  order all duties ascribed by law to be undertaken;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, and

                  —

                  reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements and actions.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on 2 pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of national solidarity as defined by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which is a general principle of law. In that regard, the applicant submits that, in the view of the CJEU, a scheme concerning a specific demographic or group of workers is not a legal scheme but a professional scheme. It claims that, in the present case, in view of the discrimination between self-employed persons, who are required to subscribe to the Social Security Scheme for Self-Employed Workers (régime social des travailleurs indépendants, ‘the RSI’) even if their turnover is non-existent or they are running a deficit, and other persons such as self-employed businessmen, employees and civil servants, the scheme is evidently not a legal one.
                  In addition, the applicant argues that the RSI does not comply with the solidarity principle — on which, according to the French State, the RSI, as a legal social security system, is based — in that the applicant is requested to pay minimum and fixed-sum contributions, even in the event of low income. What is more, the applicant could find himself entirely without sickness pay or pension, if insufficient contributions were paid or payments were merely made late, which is allegedly not the case for other French workers subscribed to other social security schemes.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, which establishes the equality of all EU citizens, in that it is impossible to calculate the amount of the contributions to the RSI in a way that puts self-employed persons such as the applicant at a disadvantage in respect of the other groups of French workers. Therefore, when it declared that it would take no further action on his complaint, the Commission breached the principle of national solidarity, defined by the CJEU as a general principle of law, and infringed Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, which should result in the annulment of its decision.


title: Case C-495/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (the Slovak Republic) lodged on 30 July 2018 — YX

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/26

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (the Slovak Republic) lodged on 30 July 2018 — YX
      (Case C-495/18)
      (2018/C 352/32)
      Language of the case: Slovak

         Referring court

      Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: YX

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 4(1)(a) of the Framework Decision (1) to be interpreted to the effect that the criteria set out therein are satisfied only when the sentenced person has, in the Member State of his nationality, such family, social, professional or other links that it is possible to reasonably assume from those links that enforcement in that State of the sentence may facilitate his social rehabilitation, and as therefore precluding national legislation such as Paragraph 4(1)(a) of Law No 549/2011 [Zákon č. 549/2011 o uznávaní a výkone rozhodnutí, ktorými sa ukladá trestná sankcia spojená s odňatím slobody v Európskej únii a o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 221/2006 o výkone väzby v znení neskorších predpisov] which, in such cases, enables a judgment to be recognised and enforced in the event of merely formally-recorded habitual residence in the executing State, regardless of whether the sentenced person has concrete links in that State which could enhance his social rehabilitation.

                  2.

                  If that question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 4(2) of the Framework Decision to be interpreted to the effect that the competent authority of the issuing State is required also in the situation provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of the Framework Decision to satisfy itself, even before forwarding the judgment and certificate, that enforcement of the sentence by the executing State would serve the purpose of facilitating the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person and is, furthermore, required to provide the information gathered for that purpose in section (d), point 4, of the certificate specifically, where the sentenced person claims in the statement of his opinion provided for in Article 6(3) of the Framework Decision that he has concrete family, social or professional links in the issuing State.

                  3.

                  If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must Article 9(1)(b) of the Framework Decision be interpreted to the effect that where, in the situation set out in Article 4(1)(a) of the Framework Decision, despite the consultation under Article 4(1)(3) of that Decision and any provision of other necessary information, it is not proven that there are such family, social or professional links from which it could reasonably be assumed that the enforcement in the executing State of the sentence may facilitate the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person, there is still a ground for refusing to recognise and enforce the judgment.

         (1)  Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27).


title: Case C-485/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV v Unimatic Vertriebs GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 2(9) — Concept of ‘business premises’ — Criteria — Sales contract concluded on a stand run by a trader at a trade fair)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/14

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV v Unimatic Vertriebs GmbH
      (Case C-485/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 2(9) - Concept of ‘business premises’ - Criteria - Sales contract concluded on a stand run by a trader at a trade fair))
      (2018/C 352/18)
      Language of the case: Germany

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV

         Defendant: Unimatic Vertriebs GmbH

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2(9) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that a stand, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, run by a trader at a trade fair, at which he carries out his activity for a few days each year, constitutes ‘business premises’ within the meaning of that provision if, in the light of all the factual circumstances surrounding that activity, in particular the appearance of the stand and the information relayed on the premises of the fair itself, a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer could reasonably assume that the trader is carrying out his activity there and will solicit him in order to conclude a contract, which is for the national court to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.


title: Case T-680/13: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others v Council and Others (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Decision of the Governing Council of the ECB relating to emergency liquidity assistance following a request from the Central Bank of Cyprus — Euro Group Statements of 25 March, 12 April, 13 May and 13 September 2013 concerning Cyprus — Decision 2013/236/EU — Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Admissibility — Formal requirements — Exhaustion of national rights of action — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Right to property — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others v Council and Others
      (Case T-680/13) (1)

      ((Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Decision of the Governing Council of the ECB relating to emergency liquidity assistance following a request from the Central Bank of Cyprus - Euro Group Statements of 25 March, 12 April, 13 May and 13 September 2013 concerning Cyprus - Decision 2013/236/EU - Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Admissibility - Formal requirements - Exhaustion of national rights of action - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Right to property - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment))
      (2018/C 352/33)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 50 other applicants whose names are included in the annex (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

         Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Dumitriu-Segnana, E. Chatziioakeimidou and E. Moro, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by: B. Smulders, J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, and subsequently by J.-P. Keppenne, M. Konstantinidis and L. Flynn, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (represented initially by: N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, subsequently by P. Papapaschalis and P. Senkovic and finally by M. Szablewska and K. Laurinavičius, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, avocat), Euro Group, represented by the Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Dumitriu-Segnana, E. Chatziioakeimidou and E. Moro, acting as Agents) European Union, represented by the European Commission (represented initially by: B. Smulders, J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, and subsequently by J.-P. Keppenne, M. Konstantinidis and L. Flynn, acting as Agents)

         Re:

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

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union, by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

         (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case C-521/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Coöperatieve Vereniging SNB-REACT U.A. v Deepak Mehta (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 4 — Legal standing of a body for the collective representation of trade mark proprietors — Directive 2000/31/EC — Articles 12 to 14 — Liability of a provider of IP address rental and registration services allowing the anonymous use of domain names and websites)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/15

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Coöperatieve Vereniging SNB-REACT U.A. v Deepak Mehta
      (Case C-521/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 4 - Legal standing of a body for the collective representation of trade mark proprietors - Directive 2000/31/EC - Articles 12 to 14 - Liability of a provider of IP address rental and registration services allowing the anonymous use of domain names and websites))
      (2018/C 352/19)
      Language of the case: Estonian

         Referring court

      Tallinna Ringkonnakohus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Coöperatieve Vereniging SNB-REACT U.A.

         Defendant: Deepak Mehta

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 4(c) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required to recognise a body collectively representing trade mark proprietors, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, as a person entitled to seek, in its own name, the application of the remedies laid down by that directive, for the purpose of defending the rights of those trade mark proprietors, and to bring legal proceedings, in its own name, for the purpose of enforcing those rights, on condition that that body is regarded by national law as having a direct interest in the defence of such rights and that that law allows it to bring legal proceedings to that end, these being matters for the referring court to verify.

                  2.

                  Articles 12 to 14 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’) must be interpreted as meaning that the limitations of liability for which they provide apply to the provider of an IP address rental and registration service allowing the anonymous use of internet domain names, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, inasmuch as that service comes within the scope of one of the categories of service referred to in those articles and meets all the corresponding conditions, in so far as the activity of such a service provider is of a merely technical, automatic and passive nature, implying that he has neither knowledge of nor control over the information transmitted or cached by his customers, and in so far as he does not play an active role in allowing those customers to optimise their online sales activity, these being matters for the referring court to verify.

         (1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.


title: Case T-453/18: Action brought on 24 July 2018 — Biasotto v EUIPO — OOFOS (OOF)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/38

      Action brought on 24 July 2018 — Biasotto v EUIPO — OOFOS (OOF)
      (Case T-453/18)
      (2018/C 352/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Alessandro Biasotto (Treviso, Italy) (represented by: F. le Divelec Lemmi, R. Castiglioni and E. Cammareri, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: OOFOS LLC (Reno, Nevada, United States).

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark OOF — Application for registration No 14 961 767

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 in Case R 1270/2017-2.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  fully uphold the present action;

                  —

                  entirely reject the contested decision and, consequently, allow EUTM Application No 14 961 767 to proceed to registration in relation to all the products and services claimed by the same in classes 18, 25 and 35 (or, eventually, asking the EUIPO to examine once again the appeal filed by the Applicant on 15 June 2017, this time, however, comparing the contested application with the trademark claimed by the Opponent’s earlier International Registration No 1 258 728);

                  —

                  order EUIPO or the Intervener to bear all the costs related not only to the present proceedings before the General Court but also to the opposition and appeal proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-396/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 15 June 2018 — Gennaro Cafaro v DQ

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/15

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 15 June 2018 — Gennaro Cafaro v DQ
      (Case C-396/18)
      (2018/C 352/20)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte suprema di cassazione

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Gennaro Cafaro

         Cross-appellant: DQ

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the national legislation set out in the Prime Ministerial Decree of 9 September 2008, in implementation of the third paragraph of Article 748 of the Navigation Code, which regulates the limitations on employment for DQ aircrew and in particular provides for the automatic termination of the employment relationship once a pilot reaches the age of 60, contrary to Regulation No 1178/2011 (1) in so far as that regulation sets 65 years as the age limit for employing pilots in commercial air transport, and would that regulation, if the special national legislation were to be disapplied, be applicable to the present case?

                  2.

                  In the alternative, if that regulation is held not to be applicable ratione materiae to the present case, is the aforementioned national legislation contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of age laid down in Directive 2000/78 (2) and in Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to which Directive 2000/78 gives practical expression?

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 311, p. 1).

         (2)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case T-454/18: Action brought on 24 July 2018 — Biasotto v EUIPO — OOFOS (OO)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/39

      Action brought on 24 July 2018 — Biasotto v EUIPO — OOFOS (OO)
      (Case T-454/18)
      (2018/C 352/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Alessandro Biasotto (Treviso, Italy) (represented by: F. Le Divelec Lemmi, R. Castiglioni and E. Cammareri, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: OOFOS LLC (Reno, Nevada, United States).

         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 trade mark OO — Application for registration No 14 961 791

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2018 in Case R 1281/2017-2.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  fully uphold the present action;

                  —

                  entirely reject the contested decision, confirming, in substance, the conclusion reached by the EUIPO in its decision of 17 May 2017 relating to opposition proceedings No B 2683558 and, consequently, allowing EUTM application No 14 961 791 to proceed to registration in relation to all products and services claimed by the same in classes 18, 25 and 35;

                  —

                  order the Intervener to bear all the costs related not only to the present proceedings before the General Court but also to the opposition and appeal proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-417/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 26 June 2018 — AW, BV, CU, DT v Republic of Lithuania, represented by Lietuvos Respublikos ryšių reguliavimo tarnyba, Bendrasis pagalbos centras and Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/16

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 26 June 2018 — AW, BV, CU, DT v Republic of Lithuania, represented by Lietuvos Respublikos ryšių reguliavimo tarnyba, Bendrasis pagalbos centras and Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija
      (Case C-417/18)
      (2018/C 352/21)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: AW, BV, CU, DT

         Defendant: Republic of Lithuania, represented by Lietuvos Respublikos ryšių reguliavimo tarnyba, Bendrasis pagalbos centras and Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does Article 26(5) of Directive 2002/22/EC, (1) as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, (2) regulate the mandatory provision of location information where calls are made from mobile devices without SIM cards?

                  2.

                  Where a Member State’s national legislation allows individuals to make calls to the European emergency call number ‘112’ without a SIM card, does that fact mean that location information for such emergency calls has to be established under Article 26(5) of Directive 2002/22/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC?

                  3.

                  Is the national legislation laid down in point 4.5.4 of the Procedure for access of subscribers and/or users to services of authorities providing emergency services (version in force from 11 November 2011 to 15 April 2016), which inter alia provides that public mobile network providers are to supply location information with an accuracy of base station (sector) coverage (Cell-ID), but which does not specify the minimum accuracy (in terms of distance) with which base stations must establish the caller’s location or the density (in terms of distance) at which base stations must be distributed, compatible with Article 26(5) of Directive 2002/22/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, which provides that competent regulatory authorities are to lay down criteria for the accuracy and reliability of the caller location information provided?

                  4.

                  If the answers to the first question and/or second question are such that a Member State has to ensure that location information is established under Article 26(5) of Directive 2002/22/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, and/or the answer to the third question is such that the national legislation is incompatible with Article 26(5) of Directive 2002/22/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, which provides that competent regulatory authorities are to lay down criteria for the accuracy and reliability of the caller location information provided, is a national court required, when deciding on the issue of compensation for damage, to establish a direct causal link between the breach of EU law and the damage sustained by the individuals, or is it sufficient to establish an indirect causal link between the breach of EU law and the damage sustained by the individuals, where, under provisions of national law and/or national case-law, the establishment of an indirect causal link between the unlawful actions and the damage sustained by the individuals is sufficient to give rise to liability?

         (1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).

         (2)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 11).


title: Case T-463/18: Action brought on 30 July 2018 — Novartis v EUIPO (SMARTSURFACE)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/40

      Action brought on 30 July 2018 — Novartis v EUIPO (SMARTSURFACE)
      (Case T-463/18)
      (2018/C 352/47)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Junquera Lara, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SMARTSURFACE — Application for registration No 16 492 076

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2018 in Case R 1765/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  declare that Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No. 207/2009 do not preclude the sign at issue (Community Trademark No. 16 492 076) in respect of the goods in Class 09 described in the application for registration and;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case C-430/18: Action brought on 29 June 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/17

      Action brought on 29 June 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
      (Case C-430/18)
      (2018/C 352/22)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, J. Rius, G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

                  —

                  Declare that, by failing to adopt, by 18 September 2016, all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features (1), or in any case, by failing to notify those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29(1) of that directive;

                  —

                  Impose on the Kingdom of Spain, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 48 919,20, with effect from the date of delivery of the judgment declaring the failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt or, in any case, to notify to the Commission, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2014/92/EU;

                  —

                  Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2014/92/EU, the Member States were required to adopt and publish, by 18 September 2016 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive, and notify those measures to the Commission.
      Given that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to transpose Directive 2014/92/EU in full and notify the transposition measures to the Commission, the Commission decided to bring the present action before the Court of Justice.
      The Commission suggests that a daily penalty payment of EUR 48 919,20 be imposed on the Kingdom of Spain, with effect from the date of delivery of the judgment, calculated on the basis of the seriousness and duration of the infringement and the dissuasive effect with regard to that Member State’s ability to play.

         (1)  OJ 2014 L 257, p. 214


title: Case T-473/18: Action brought on 27 July 2018 — Getsmarter Online v EUIPO (getsmarter)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/40

      Action brought on 27 July 2018 — Getsmarter Online v EUIPO (getsmarter)
      (Case T-473/18)
      (2018/C 352/48)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Getsmarter Online Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Silcock, Barrister)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark getsmarter — Application for registration No 16 565 939

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 in Case R 2632/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Contested Decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the Appellant’s costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-474/18: Action brought on 6 August 2018 — Veit v ECB

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/41

      Action brought on 6 August 2018 — Veit v ECB
      (Case T-474/18)
      (2018/C 352/49)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Sebastian Veit (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Kujath, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Central Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the defendant’s decision of 3 January 2018 concerning the applicant’s classification with effect from 1 January 2018, in so far as it attributes to the applicant only salary step 17 in salary band F/G;

                  —

                  annul the defendant’s decision of 25 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application to be attributed salary step 83 in salary band F/G with effect from 1 January 2018;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The action is based on the following pleas in law:

                  1.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  The first plea in law alleges that the defendant took only limited account of relevant professional experience in the case of internal candidates, in contrast to external candidates, who were in a comparable situation in an identical selection procedure.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of the general duty of care
                  The second plea in law alleges that the defendant, without objective justification, treated the applicant, as a member of its own staff, less favourably in the classification than it treated candidates who were not yet employed by it.


title: Case T-481/18: Action brought on 1 August 2018 — Electroquímica Onubense v ECHA

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/42

      Action brought on 1 August 2018 — Electroquímica Onubense v ECHA
      (Case T-481/18)
      (2018/C 352/50)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Electroquímica Onubense, S.L. (Palos de la Frontera, Spain) (represented by: D. González Blanco, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant requests the General Court to give a new judgment establishing that Electroquímica Onubense (EQO) fulfils the requirements for a medium-sized enterprise for the purposes of the application of the fees to be paid for the registration of products with the ECHA.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the SME calculation report annexed to the contested decision refers to the applicant’s relationship with ERCROS during the years 2013 and 2014 and that its author overlooks very important information, namely, that the applicant company was formed in February 2015 with share capital of EUR 3 000, the minimum capital required under Spanish commercial law. The applicant states, in that regard, that it is the new company’s share capital which was the determining factor in declaring it ‘a small enterprise’, since EQO in fact fulfilled the criteria required in the applicable legislation, ERCROS’s shareholding in that company being on any view insufficient to convert it into a ‘large enterprise’.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that ERCROS was EQO’s sole shareholder during the period from the formation of the company (18/02/15) to the transfer of shares to SALINAS DEL ODIEL (02/06/15) and that merely on a short-term or instrumental basis in order to facilitate EQO’s transfer of ownership to its final recipient, SALINAS DEL ODIEL.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that at the end of the 2015 financial year, EQO was no longer owned by ERCROS (regarded as ‘a large enterprise’), either directly or indirectly, and that it was owned by SALINAS DEL ODIEL (regarded as ‘a medium-sized enterprise’).

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the relevant information for the purposes of determining the size of EQO, for the purpose of the application of the legislation concerned, can only be EQO’s relationship with the enterprise which was its parent company at the end of the 2015 financial year — as shown in the annual accounts for that year — and not the short-term and instrumental relationship during the reference financial year.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that it is the fee laid down for a medium-sized enterprise which had to be applied and not that for a large enterprise, since the relationship which must be established for that purpose is that between EQO and SALINAS DEL ODIEL and not that between EQO and ERCROS.


title: Case T-487/18: Action brought on 14 August 2018 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (ViruProtect)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/42

      Action brought on 14 August 2018 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (ViruProtect)
      (Case T-487/18)
      (2018/C 352/51)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ViruProtect’ — Application for registration No 16 295 511

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2018 in Case R 1886/2017-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-491/18: Action brought on 14 August 2018 — Vafo Praha v EUIPO — Rutzinger-Kurpas (Meatlove)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/43

      Action brought on 14 August 2018 — Vafo Praha v EUIPO — Rutzinger-Kurpas (Meatlove)
      (Case T-491/18)
      (2018/C 352/52)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Vafo Praha s.r.o. (Chrášt’any, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Vojáček, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas (Spigelau, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Meatlove — Application for registration No 15 557 374

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 in Case R 264/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-492/18: Action brought on 15 August 2018 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (Scanner Pro)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/44

      Action brought on 15 August 2018 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (Scanner Pro)
      (Case T-492/18)
      (2018/C 352/53)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Igor Zhadanov (Odessa, Ukraine) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Scanner Pro — Application for registration No 16 257 727

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 in Case R 1812/2017-2.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  register European Union Trade Mark Application 016257727 for goods in classes 9 and 42;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-495/18: Action brought on 17 August 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (DERMATEST)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/44

      Action brought on 17 August 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (DERMATEST)
      (Case T-495/18)
      (2018/C 352/54)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DERMATEST’ — Application for registration No 17 542 986

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 in Case R 426/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

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

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-496/18: Action brought on 17 August 2018 — OCU v SRB

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/45

      Action brought on 17 August 2018 — OCU v SRB
      (Case T-496/18)
      (2018/C 352/55)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Martínez Martínez and C. López-Mélida de Ramón, lawyers)

         Defendant: Single Resolution Board

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the SRB Appeal Panel’s Final Decision of 19 June 2018, given in Case 54/2017 brought against the Single Resolution Board;

                  —

                  Order the ‘SRB Appeal Panel’ to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a breach of the fundamental right under Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the principle of the observance of the rights of the defence (right to good administration in the form of access to documents for the legitimate exercise of the rights of the defence).

                              —

                              It is claimed in that connection that the contested decision, in which the Appeal Board does not grant full access to the documentation held by the Single Resolution Board (SRB), requested for the purpose of exercising the legitimate rights of the defence, constitutes a serious breach of the fundamental right to good administration, in the form of access to documents under Article 41(2) of the Charter and the fundamental principle of EU law of observance of the rights of the defence.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the articles which establish an exception to the requirements of confidentiality and professional secrecy where a request is made in the exercise of the rights of the defence and access to an effective remedy, referred to in Article 88 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014, establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1); Article 84 of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190); and Article 53 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

                              —

                              It is claimed in that connection that the contested decision, in which the Appeal Board does not grant full access to the documentation held by the SRB, wrongly applies the exceptions to general access to documents contained in the abovementioned legislation, given that such access is sought in the context of exercising the rights of the defence and the right to access to an effective remedy.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the fundamental right under Article 41(2) of the Charter (the right to good administration, so far as concerns the obligation to give reasons for decisions).

                              —

                              It is claimed in that connection that the contested decision, in which the Appeal Board does not grant full access to the documentation held by the Single Resolution Board (SRB), constitutes a serious breach of the fundamental right to good administration, referred to in Article 41(2) of the Charter, in so far as it disregards the obligation to give reasons for decisions.


title: Case T-497/18: Action brought on 14 August 2018 — IAK — Forum International v EUIPO — Schwalb (IAK)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/46

      Action brought on 14 August 2018 — IAK — Forum International v EUIPO — Schwalb (IAK)
      (Case T-497/18)
      (2018/C 352/56)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: IAK GmbH — Forum International (Kirchzarten, Germany) (represented by: G. Wilke, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ulrich Schwalb (Cologne, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark IAK — EU trade mark No 9 843 533

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2018 in Case R 1511/2017-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  alter the contested decision such that the application for a declaration of invalidity is dismissed in its entirety;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-498/18: Action brought on 20 August 2018 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (Happy Moreno choco)

text:
               1.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/47

      Action brought on 20 August 2018 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (Happy Moreno choco)
      (Case T-498/18)
      (2018/C 352/57)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ZPC Flis sp.j. (Radziejowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Happy Moreno choco — Application for registration No 15 028 087

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 in Case R 1464/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the EUIPO for reconsideration;
                  or

                  —

                  alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EUTMA 015028087 ‘Happy Moreno choco’ for all goods in classes 30 and 35 and the trademark shall be registered;

                  —

                  award the costs in the Applicant’s favour.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty.


title: Case T-623/16: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — Paalupaikka (MAIN AUTO WHEELS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MAIN AUTO WHEELS — Earlier EU figurative marks VW — Absolute ground for refusal — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — Paalupaikka (MAIN AUTO WHEELS)
      (Case T-623/16) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MAIN AUTO WHEELS - Earlier EU figurative marks VW - Absolute ground for refusal - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 399/44)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and J. Engberding, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Paalupaikka Oy (Iisalmi, Finland)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2016 (Case R 2189/2015-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Volkswagen and Paalupaikka.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


title: Case C-450/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Gerona (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2018 — WA v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/18

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Gerona (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2018 — WA v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
      (Case C-450/18)
      (2018/C 399/26)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de lo Social de Gerona

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: WA

         Defendant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

         Question referred

      Does a national legislative provision (specifically, Article 60(1) of the Ley General de Seguridad Social (General Law on Social Security)) which grants the right to receive a pension supplement –– in view of their contribution to social security in terms of demographics –– to women who have had biological or adopted children and are in receipt of a contributory retirement, widow’s or permanent incapacity pension under any scheme within the social security system, but, on the other hand, does not grant that right to men in an identical situation, infringe the principle of equal treatment which prohibits all discrimination on grounds of sex, enshrined in Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (1) and recast by Directive 2006/54/EC (2) of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation?

         (1)  Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15).

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