title: Case C-83/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Olt (Romania) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’ v Inspecția Judiciară

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/31

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Olt (Romania) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’ v Inspecția Judiciară
      (Case C-83/19)
      (2019/C 187/36)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul Olt

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’

         Defendant: Inspecția Judiciară

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, (1) be considered to be an act of an institution of the European Union, within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, and therefore amenable to interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union?

                  2.

                  Do the terms, nature and duration of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, come within the scope of application of the Treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, signed by Romania in Luxembourg on 25 April 2005? Are the requirements laid down in the reports prepared in the context of that mechanism binding on Romania?

                  3.

                  Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that it obliges the Member States to take the measures necessary to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law, that is to say, guarantees of an independent disciplinary procedure for Romanian judges, by eliminating all risks of political influence over the conduct of those procedures, such as direct Government appointment of the management of the Inspecția Judiciară (Judicial Inspection, Romania), even on a provisional basis?

                  4.

                  Must Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are obliged to comply with the rule of law criteria, also required in the reports prepared in the context of the cooperation and verification mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, in the case of procedures whereby the Government directly appoints the management of the Inspecția Judiciară (Judicial Inspection, Romania), even on a provisional basis?

         (1)  Commission Decision of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (OJ 2006 L 354, p. 56, Special edition: Chapter 11 Vol. 51 p. 55).


title: Case C-138/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 20 February 2019 — DY

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/33

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 20 February 2019 — DY
      (Case C-138/19)
      (2019/C 187/38)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: DY

         Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

         Interested party: Finanzpolizei

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC (2) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as a failure to make available documents relating to pay or a failure to report to the Central Coordination Office (ZKO notifications), provides for very high fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?

                  2.

                  If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
                  Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits?

                  3.

                  Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that requires a declaration of amendment to be provided to the Central Coordination Office in the event that the temporary activity in the host country is concluded prematurely and/or interrupted?

                  4.

                  If the answer to Question 3 is in the negative:
                  Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not grant a reasonable period of time for the submission of a declaration of amendment?

                  5.

                  Are Article 56 TFEU and Article 9 of Directive 2014/67/EU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides that, for the purposes of the requirement to make available certain documents, it is not sufficient subsequently to submit appropriate and relevant documents within a reasonable period of time?

                  6.

                  Are Article 56 TFEU and Article 9 of Directive 2014/67/EU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides that foreign service providers are to submit documents that go beyond those specified in Article 9 of Directive 2014/67/EU, are neither relevant nor appropriate and are not clearly defined under national law (such as, for example, pay statements, payslips, pay lists, tax statements, registrations and deregistrations, health insurance, schedules of notification and allocation of surcharges, documents relating to pay grades, certificates)?

         (1)  OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.

         (2)  Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11).


title: Case T-558/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Lupu v EUIPO — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Djili DS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Djili DS — Earlier national word mark DJILI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Lupu v EUIPO — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Djili DS)
      (Case T-558/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Djili DS - Earlier national word mark DJILI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 213/35)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: P. Acsinte, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Dulovo, Bulgaria) (represented by: C.-R. Romițan, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 June 2018 (Case R 2391/2017-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Lupu and Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Victor Lupu to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.


title: Case C-224/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Budimex S.A. v Minister Finansów (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 66 — Chargeable event and chargeability of the tax — Time of the supply of the services — Construction and installation work — Taking into account the time of the acceptance of the work stipulated in the contract for the supply of services)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/7

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Budimex S.A. v Minister Finansów
      (Case C-224/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 66 - Chargeable event and chargeability of the tax - Time of the supply of the services - Construction and installation work - Taking into account the time of the acceptance of the work stipulated in the contract for the supply of services)
      (2019/C 220/09)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Budimex S.A.

         Other party to the proceedings: Minister Finansów

         Operative part of the judgment

      Point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 66 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as not precluding, if an invoice relating to the performance of the service supplied is not issued or is issued late, the formal acceptance of that service from being regarded as the time when that service was supplied, where, as in the case in the main proceedings, the Member State provides that VAT is to become chargeable on expiry of a time limit running from the day when the service was supplied, provided, first, that the formality of acceptance was stipulated by the parties in the contract that binds them according to contractual terms reflecting the economic and commercial realities in the field in which the service is supplied and, second, that that formality constitutes the actual completion of the service and determines the amount of consideration due, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


title: Case T-553/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council (Non-contractual liability — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds — Compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant following the inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources at issue — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council
      (Case T-553/15) (1)

      (Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant following the inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources at issue - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)
      (2019/C 220/39)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Export Development Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

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

         Re:

      Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant as a result of the restrictive measures adopted against it.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Export Development Bank of Iran to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

                  3.

                     Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case T-516/16 and T-536/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Alvarez and Bejarano and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Members of the contract staff — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Less favourable scheme for the flat-rate payment of travel expenses and for the increase in annual leave by way of additional days off as travelling time — Link between the grant of those entitlements and the expatriate status — Abolition of the reimbursement of annual travel expenses and travelling time)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Alvarez and Bejarano and Others v Commission
      (Case T-516/16 and T-536/16) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Members of the contract staff - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Less favourable scheme for the flat-rate payment of travel expenses and for the increase in annual leave by way of additional days off as travelling time - Link between the grant of those entitlements and the expatriate status - Abolition of the reimbursement of annual travel expenses and travelling time)
      (2019/C 220/40)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Maria Alvarez y Bejarano (Namur, Belgium) and the 11 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Actions pursuant to Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decisions no longer to allow the applicants, as of 1 January 2014, travelling time or reimbursement of annual travel costs so that they may maintain a connection with their place of origin.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Orders that Cases T-516/16 and T-536/16 be joined for the purposes of the judgment;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the actions;

                  3.

                     Orders Ms Maria Alvarez y Bejarano and the other officials and members of staff of the European Commission whose names appear in the annex to pay the costs;

                  4.

                     Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament each to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-85/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-523/16 and T-542/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Ardalic and Others v Council (Civil service — Officials — Members of the contract staff — Reform of the Staff Regulation — Less favourable scheme for the flat-rate payment of travel expenses and for the increase in annual leave by way of additional days off as travelling time — Link between the grant of those benefits and expatriate or foreign resident status — Abolition of the reimbursement of annual travel expenses and of travelling time)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Ardalic and Others v Council
      (Case T-523/16 and T-542/16) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Members of the contract staff - Reform of the Staff Regulation - Less favourable scheme for the flat-rate payment of travel expenses and for the increase in annual leave by way of additional days off as travelling time - Link between the grant of those benefits and expatriate or foreign resident status - Abolition of the reimbursement of annual travel expenses and of travelling time)
      (2019/C 220/41)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Jakov Ardalic (Brussels, Belgium) and the 11 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents),

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Applications on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions no longer to grant the applicants, as from 1 January 2014, travelling time or reimbursement of annual travel expenses so that they may maintain a relationship with their place of origin.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Joins Cases T-523/16 and T-542/16 for the purposes of the judgment;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the actions;

                  3.

                     Orders Mr Jakov Ardalic and the other officials or members of staff of the Council of the European Union whose names appear in the annex to the judgment to pay the costs;

                  4.

                     Orders the European Parliament to pay its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-100/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-566/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Związek Gmin Zagłębia Miedziowego w Polkowicach v Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168(a) — Deduction of input tax — Principle of VAT neutrality — Taxable person engaged in both economic and non-economic activities — Goods and services purchased for the purposes of performing both transactions subject to VAT and non-taxable transactions — Absence of apportionment criteria in national legislation — Principle of lawfulness of the tax)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/6

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Związek Gmin Zagłębia Miedziowego w Polkowicach v Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej
      (Case C-566/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168(a) - Deduction of input tax - Principle of VAT neutrality - Taxable person engaged in both economic and non-economic activities - Goods and services purchased for the purposes of performing both transactions subject to VAT and non-taxable transactions - Absence of apportionment criteria in national legislation - Principle of lawfulness of the tax)
      (2019/C 230/07)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Związek Gmin Zagłębia Miedziowego w Polkowicach

         Defendant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national practice which permits a taxable person to deduct the entirety of the input value added tax (VAT) paid on the purchase of goods and services by that taxable person for the purposes of performing both economic activities, which are subject to VAT, and non-economic activities, which do not come within the scope of VAT, on account of the absence, in the applicable tax legislation, of specific rules on allocation criteria which would allow the taxable person to determine the share of input tax which ought to be deemed to be connected to his economic and non-economic activities respectively.

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.


title: Case T-324/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a golden bottle) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a golden bottle — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a golden bottle)
      (Case T-324/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a golden bottle - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 230/51)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl (Trebaseleghe, Italy) (represented by: L. Giove, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Scardocchia and A. Folliard Monguiral, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sandro Bottega (Colle Umberto, Italy) (represented by: R. Galli, lawyer

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 1036/2017-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between VI.TO. and Mr Bottega.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


               11.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/7

      Action brought on 28 March 2019 by the County of Aust-Agder against Konkurrenten.no AS
      (Case E-1/17 COSTS 2)
      (2019/C 233/06)
      An action against Konkurrenten.no AS was brought before the EFTA Court on 28 March 2019 by the County of Aust-Agder, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Amie Eliassen of Kluge Advokatfirma AS, Bryggegata 6, Postboks 1548 Vika, 0117 Oslo, Norway.
      The applicant asks that the Court make the following order:

                  1.

                  That the total amount of the costs to be paid by Konkurrenten.no AS to the County of Aust-Agder is NOK 403 430,92, converted into euros at the European Central Bank’s official rates on the day of the notification of the order.

                  2.

                  Default interest shall be due on that amount from the date of notification of the present order until the date of payment; the applicable interest rate shall be calculated on the basis of the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations in force on the first calendar day of the month in which payment is due, increased by three and a half percentage points.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

                  —

                  Konkurrenten.no AS brought an action against Decision No 179/15/COL of 7 May 2015, by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, before the EFTA Court on 11 January 2017. The applicant applied for leave to intervene in the Case, E-1/17 Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority, which was granted by Order of the President on 12 July 2017.

                  —

                  Article 70(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Court states.

                        ‘If there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the Court shall, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposite party, make an order.’

                  —

                  In the Order of the Court in Case E-1/17, the EFTA Court ordered Konkurrenten.no AS to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.


title: Case C-770/18 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2018 by Anikó Pint against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 October 2018 in Case T-634/17 Pint v Commission

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/3

      Appeal brought on 8 December 2018 by Anikó Pint against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 October 2018 in Case T-634/17 Pint v Commission
      (Case C-770/18 P)
      (2019/C 238/04)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Anikó Pint (represented by: D. Lázár, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Hungary
      The Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded by order of 21 May 2019 and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.


title: Case T-631/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Remag Metallhandel and Jaschinsky v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Anti-dumping — OLAF’s insistence that Member States recover anti-dumping duties relating to any importation of silicon metal originating in Taiwan without proof that that silicon metal originated in China — Regulation (EC) No 398/2004 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 — Causal link)

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/15

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Remag Metallhandel and Jaschinsky v Commission
      (Case T-631/16) (1)

      (Non-contractual liability - Anti-dumping - OLAF’s insistence that Member States recover anti-dumping duties relating to any importation of silicon metal originating in Taiwan without proof that that silicon metal originated in China - Regulation (EC) No 398/2004 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 - Causal link)
      (2019/C 238/18)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Remag Metallhandel GmbH (Steyr, Austria) and Werner Jaschinsky (St. Ulrich bei Steyr, Austria) (represented by: M. Lux, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Application based on Article 268 TFEU, seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the request by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) that the customs authorities of the Member States recover anti-dumping duties for consignments of silicon exported from Taiwan to the European Union.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Remag Metallhandel GmbH and Mr Werner Jaschinsky to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case T-837/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Negru v EUIPO — Sky (SkyPrivate) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark SkyPrivate — Earlier national word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/15

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Negru v EUIPO — Sky (SkyPrivate)
      (Case T-837/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark SkyPrivate - Earlier national word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 238/19)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Alexandru Negru (Iași, Romania) (represented by: initially I.-M. Iliescu, and subsequently by T. Protopopescu, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents,)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sky Ltd, formerly Sky plc, (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by K. Saliger, Solicitor, and P. Roberts QC)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 October 2017 (Case R 349/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Sky and Mr Negru.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Alexandru Negru to pay the costs, including those incurred by Sky Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.


title: Case T-312/18: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Dentsply De Trey v EUIPO — IDS (AQUAPRINT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark AQUAPRINT — Earlier national word marks AQUACEM and national unregistered marks AQUACEM and AQUASIL — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action for passing off — No misrepresentation)

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/16

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Dentsply De Trey v EUIPO — IDS (AQUAPRINT)
      (Case T-312/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark AQUAPRINT - Earlier national word marks AQUACEM and national unregistered marks AQUACEM and AQUASIL - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action for passing off - No misrepresentation)
      (2019/C 238/20)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Dentsply De Trey GmbH (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: S. Clark, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene, J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: IDS SpA (Savone, Italy) (represented by: M. Andreolini and F. Andreolini, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2018 (Case R 1438/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Dentsply De Trey and IDS

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Dentsply De Trey GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018


title: Case C-420/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst (Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/19

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst
      (Case C-420/18) (1)

      (Request for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 10 - Taxable person - Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ - Definition - Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation)
      (2019/C 263/23)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: IO

         Defendant: Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 9 and 10 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who, although he is not bound to the governing body of that foundation by any employer-employee relationship or to the Supervisory Board of that foundation by such a relationship in respect of the performance of his role as a member of that board, does not act in his name, on his own behalf or under his own responsibility, but on behalf of and under the responsibility of that Supervisory Board and does not bear the economic risk arising from his activities, since he receives a fixed remuneration which is not dependent on his participation in meetings or hours actually worked, does not carry out an economic activity independently.

         (1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.


title: Case C-505/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Copebi SCA v Établissement national des produits de l'agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Decision 2009/402/EC — Contingency plans in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by the French Republic — Finding that the aid is incompatible — Recovery order — Scope of the decision — Economic agricultural committees)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/20

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Copebi SCA v Établissement national des produits de l'agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)
      (Case C-505/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Decision 2009/402/EC - Contingency plans in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by the French Republic - Finding that the aid is incompatible - Recovery order - Scope of the decision - Economic agricultural committees)
      (2019/C 263/25)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d'État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Copebi SCA

         Respondent: Etablissement national des produits de l'agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

         Other party: Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

         Operative part of the judgment

      Commission Decision 2009/402/EC of 28 January 2009 on the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France must be interpreted as covering aid paid by the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l’horticulture (ONIFLHOR) (National Fruit, Vegetables and Horticulture Trade Board) to the comité économique bigarreau industrie (CEBI) (Economic Committee for the Whiteheart Cherry Industry) and allocated to producers of whiteheart cherries for industrial uses by the producer groups which are members of that committee, even though first, the CEBI is not one of the eight economic agricultural committees referred to in that decision and, second, that aid, unlike the financing mechanism described in that decision, was financed only by subsidies from ONIFLHOR and not also by voluntary contributions from producers.

         (1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.


title: Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court, High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Proceedings relating to the execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of OG (C-508/18), PI (C-82/19 PPU) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/21

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court, High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Proceedings relating to the execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of OG (C-508/18), PI (C-82/19 PPU)
      (Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State - Legal position - Whether subordinate to a body of the executive - Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case - No guarantee of independence)
      (2019/C 263/26)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Supreme Court, High Court (Ireland)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: OG (C-508/18) and PI (C-82/19 PPU)

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU are joined for the purposes of the judgment.

                  2.

                  The concept of an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as not including public prosecutors’ offices of a Member State which are exposed to the risk of being subject, directly or indirectly, to directions or instructions in a specific case from the executive, such as a Minister for Justice, in connection with the adoption of a decision to issue a European arrest warrant.

         (1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.

         OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.


title: Case C-509/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of PF (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the Prosecutor General of a Member State — Legal position — Guarantee of independence)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/22

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of PF
      (Case C-509/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - European arrest warrant issued by the Prosecutor General of a Member State - Legal position - Guarantee of independence)
      (2019/C 263/27)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Supreme Court

         Party to the main proceedings

      PF

         Operative part of the judgment

      The concept of an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as including the Prosecutor General of a Member State who, whilst institutionally independent from the judiciary, is responsible for the conduct of criminal prosecutions and whose legal position, in that Member State, affords him a guarantee of independence from the executive in connection with the issuing of a European arrest warrant.

         (1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.


title: Case C-10/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 3 January 2019 — Wilo Salmson France SAS v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București and Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București — Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 3 January 2019 — Wilo Salmson France SAS v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București and Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București — Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți
      (Case C-10/19)
      (2019/C 263/28)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul București

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Wilo Salmson France SAS

         Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București and Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București — Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți
      By Order of 5 June 2019, the Court (Tenth Chamber) declared the request for a preliminary ruling manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case C-142/19 P: Appeal brought on 19 February 2019 by Dovgan GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-830/16 Monolith Frost GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/23

      Appeal brought on 19 February 2019 by Dovgan GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-830/16 Monolith Frost GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      (Case C-142/19 P)
      (2019/C 263/29)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Dovgan GmbH (represented by: C. Rohnke, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Monolith Frost GmbH

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of the European Union of 13 December 2018 in Case T-830/16;

                  —

                  further, dismiss the action at first instance.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appellant invokes errors in law in the form of infringements of EU law and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence.

                     1.

                     Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence

                  Contrary to the statement of the General Court in paragraph 55 of the judgment under appeal, the Amtsgericht Köln (Local Court, Cologne, Germany) did not find that a significant proportion of the population of Germany speaks Russian.
                  Contrary to the statement of the General Court in paragraph 64 of the judgment under appeal, the Board of Appeal did call into question the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO to the effect that ‘пломбир’ (‘plombir’) was used in the former USSR as a name of a type of ice cream.

                     2.

                     Infringement of Article 85(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

                  The General Court infringed Article 85(3) of its Rules of Procedure as it wrongly failed to take into consideration the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) of 6 July 2017 put before it by the intervener. The fact that the decision was put before the General Court only during the oral procedure was justified by the date of that decision. In addition, this constituted evidence in rebuttal under Article 92(7) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

                     3.

                     Infringement of Article 85(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

                  In paragraph 69 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court wrongly made reference to the applicant’s Annexes K16 and K17. The applicant put those annexes before the General Court out of time and therefore, under Article 85(1) of the Rules of Procedure, they should not have been allowed to be taken into consideration.

                     4.

                     Infringement of the obligation to state reasons

                  The judgment under appeal does not contain sufficient reasoning as to why the General Court accepted the assertion that in the Baltic states a significant proportion of citizens know the meaning of the Russian word ‘пломбир’. In particular, there is a lack of a finding that it is a basic vocabulary word that is also understood by those for whom Russian is not their mother tongue.
                  The judgment under appeal (in particular paragraphs 64 and 65) also contains insufficient reasoning as to why ‘пломбир’ did not refer to a fancy name or trade mark for a product in the former USSR.
                  Finally, the judgment under appeal (paragraph 66) provided no justification as to why the mere mention of a term in the GOST set of technical standards should allow it to be assumed that it is a ‘common word’ in Russian and why this set of standards should be known by the relevant public in the European Union.


title: Case C-267/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 28 March 2019 — PARKING d.o.o. v SAWAL d.o.o.

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/25

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 28 March 2019 — PARKING d.o.o. v SAWAL d.o.o.
      (Case C-267/19)
      (2019/C 263/30)
      Language of the case: Croatian

         Referring court

      Trgovački sud u Zagrebu

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: PARKING d.o.o.

         Defendant: SAWAL d.o.o.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is a provision of national law, namely Article 1 of the Ovršni zakon (Law on enforcement) (published in the Narodne novine No 112/12, 25/13, 93/14, 55/16 and 73/17), which gives notaries the power to enforce the recovery of debts based on an authentic document by issuing a writ of execution, as an enforcement order, without the express agreement of the debtor who is a legal person established in the Republic of Croatia, compatible with Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in the light of the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cases C-484/15 and C-551/15?

                  2.

                  Can the interpretation given in the Court’s judgments of 9 March 2017, Zulfikarpašić (C-484/15, EU:C:2017:199) and Pula Parking (C-551/15, EU:C:2017:193), be applied to Case Povrv-1614/2018, described above, brought before the referring court, and, specifically, is Regulation No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, in which the parties against whom enforcement is sought are legal persons established in other EU Member States, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation?


title: Case C-453/19 P: Appeal brought on 13 June 2019 by Deutsche Lufthansa AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 April 2019 in Case T-492/15 Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/33

      Appeal brought on 13 June 2019 by Deutsche Lufthansa AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 April 2019 in Case T-492/15 Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission
      (Case C-453/19 P)
      (2019/C 263/39)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

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

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

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that the action was admissible and well founded in so far as the appellant challenged Measure 12 (payment into the capital reserve of FFHG (1)) on the basis that that measure granted operating aid to FFHG;

                  —

                  further, set aside the judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2019 in Case T-492/15;

                  —

                  grant the form of order sought at first instance and annul Commission Decision SA.21121 of 1 October 2014 (2) (with the exception of Measure 12 in so far as it is used to pay operating aid for FFHG) that forms the subject of that action;

                  —

                  in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      In its appeal the appellant relies, in essence, on the following grounds of appeal:
      Individual aid awards for which an investigation procedure was launched

                  —

                  In accordance with the judgment in COFAZ alone, (3) the appellant is individually concerned and therefore has capacity to sue. The basis of this lies in the fact that the Commission failed to take into consideration essential factual information and additional advantages, despite these measures being brought to its attention by the appellant. The Commission thus infringed the appellant’s procedural rights.

                  —

                  In the alternative, if the case-law in Mory (4) is to be applied, then the first alternative would have to be applied. Due to the infringement of the appellant’s procedural rights, the Commission cannot be considered to have carried out a proper investigation procedure. In this case the appellant was also individually concerned and therefore has capacity to sue.

                  —

                  In the further alternative, the action is also to be held admissible if the second alternative in the case-law in Mory is found to be applicable, according to which the appellant must prove that its position on the market has been substantially affected by the aid. In this case the appellant’s burden of proof is reversed or at least lowered since the Commission has arbitrarily ignored facts known to it that were relevant for its decision. It is to be stated purely in the alternative that the appellant did in fact demonstrate that it had been substantially affected. The General Court’s alternative legal assessment departs from the case-law of the Court of Justice and is based upon a misunderstanding of the relevant market that constitutes an error in law. In this respect the General Court distorts and summarises the facts put forward by the appellant and the Commission, changes the content of the decision at issue and infringes the rules on the burden of proof.

            Aid schemes

                  —

                  The appellant argues that the case should also have been found to be admissible with regard to aid schemes on the basis of the judgment delivered in the Montessori case. (5)

            Individual aid award without investigation procedure

                  —

                  Where an individual aid award was made without an investigation procedure, the action should, in any case, have been found to be admissible in accordance with the first alternative in the case-law in Mory since the Commission failed to launch an in-depth investigation procedure.

         (1)  Flughafen Frankfurt-Hahn GmbH.

         (2)  Decision (EU) 2016/789 on the State aid SA.21121 (C29/08) (ex NN 54/07) implemented by Germany concerning the financing of Frankfurt Hahn airport and the financial relations between the airport and Ryanair (OJ 2016 L 134, p. 46).

         (3)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 July 1990, Société CdF Chimie azote et fertilisants SA and Société chimique de la Grande Paroisse (SCGP) SA v Commission (C-169/84, EU:C:1990:301).

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

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


title: Case T-347/19: Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Falqui v Parliament

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/54

      Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Falqui v Parliament
      (Case T-347/19)
      (2019/C 263/61)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Enrico Falqui (Florence, Italy) (represented by: F. Sorrentino and A. Sandulli, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested note and order the European Parliament to pay him the sums unduly withheld while the proceedings are pending.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action has been brought against Note D (2019) 14406 of 11 April 2019 of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance, concerning the redetermination of the pension which the applicant receives as a former Member of the European Parliament.
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning ‘implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in this regard that, since, pursuant to Article 75(2) of the decision of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning ‘implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’, the old-age pension rights acquired prior to the date of entry into force of the Statute ‘shall be maintained’, the previous reference by the ‘SID’ (Regolamentazione sulle Spese ed Indennità dei Deputati) (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament) to national legislation must be understood as a cross-reference (to the legislation in force at that time), as the pension rights acquired by former MEPs prior to the entry into force of the Statute cannot be altered under subsequent legislation.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament failed to disapply invalid national legislation.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in this regard that the legislation introduced by Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies is — when compared with the Italian legal system — invalid.

                              —

                              The Italian Chamber of Deputies claimed to be recalculating the life annuities enjoyed by former members of parliament by also applying a ‘contributory’ system to the share of those annuities accrued in periods prior to 2012, which for all public and private sector employees is disbursed using a pro-rata system, and even periods prior to 1996, which for all public and private sector employees is disbursed using a ‘sistema retributivo secco’ (purely remunerative system). In order to apply retroactively a contributory system even in relation to periods in which that system did not exist in Italy, it adopted a distorted and irrational calculation system with no actuarial basis.

                              —

                              The reform in question would also be unlawful inasmuch as the matter of MPs’ life annuities must be regulated, at least as regards its key aspects, by means of a Law and not by means of Rules of Procedure (Article 69 of the Italian Constitution).

                              —

                              Furthermore, that reform is prejudicial to the legitimate expectation of former members of parliament that their own pension entitlement will remain stable, contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, which is also a general principle of Italian law.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament unlawfully applied national legislation which is contrary to the fundamental principles of the EU legal system and in particular the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, and alleging that it failed to observe the principle of the primacy of EU law.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in this regard that the reform of the life annuities of former Italian members of parliament re-determined the amount of those annuities ex post in a way that was completely unforeseeable, was not gradual and did not include adequate safeguard clauses, and therefore seriously infringes the principle of legitimate expectations, which is one of the fundamental principles of EU law.

                              —

                              For that reason, that reform could not be implemented by the European Parliament: indeed, according to the general principles governing relations between legal systems, the transposing of rules from one legal system to another as a result of a reference (whether a dynamic reference or a cross-reference) comes up against a specific countercheck: the reference may not operate where the rule from the legal system of origin is contrary to the fundamental principles of the receiving legal system. Furthermore, because of the primacy of EU law — which is a key principle of the European Union — if national legislation is contrary to a provision of EU legislation it must be disapplied in order to ensure the uniform protection of citizens under EU law throughout the European Union.


title: Case T-348/19: Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Poggiolini v Parliament

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/56

      Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Poggiolini v Parliament
      (Case T-348/19)
      (2019/C 263/62)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Danilo Poggiolini (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sorrentino and A. Sandulli, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested note and order the European Parliament to pay him the sums unduly withheld while the proceedings are pending.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action has been brought against Note D (2019) 14435 of 11 April 2019 of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance, concerning the redetermination of the pension which the applicant receives as a former Member of the European Parliament.
      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-347/19, Falqui v European Parliament.


title: Case T-360/19: Action brought on 14 June 2019 — Jalkh v Parlement

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/60

      Action brought on 14 June 2019 — Jalkh v Parlement
      (Case T-360/19)
      (2019/C 263/66)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvilliers, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the European Parliament’s legislative resolution of 16 April 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)) as regards cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of OLAF investigations (COM(2018)0338 C8-0214/2018 2018J0170(COD);

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as the contested resolution grants the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) access to personal information, which is contrary to the right to the protection of private life and the right to the protection of personal data.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, in so far as the contested resolution allows OLAF to circumvent the parliamentary immunity of Members of Parliament.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and Article 4 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. The applicant claims that the contested resolution allows OLAF to circumvent the parliamentary immunity of Members of Parliament and to access documents that are not documents of the European Parliament.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in so far as the contested resolution violates the rights of defence of Members of Parliament.


title: Case T-361/19: Action brought on 16 June 2019 — CF v Parliament

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/61

      Action brought on 16 June 2019 — CF v Parliament
      (Case T-361/19)
      (2019/C 263/67)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: CF (represented by: A. Daoût, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the contested decisions;

                  —

                  Order compensation of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm caused by the contested decisions or award the applicant a provisional amount of EUR 50 000;

                  —

                  Order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action seeking annulment of the two decisions of the President of the Parliament of 16 April 2019 finding that the applicant was guilty of psychological harassment against her former accredited parliamentary assistant and issuing a reprimand against her, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the legal definition of harassment in Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of the Officials of the European Union, on the ground that the President of the European Parliament failed to take account of the constituent elements of the concept of psychological harassment laid down by statutory law and case-law.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons in the contested act. The applicant maintains that the President of the Parliament gave reasons for his first decision based on the incomplete report of the Advisory Committee and that his second decision does not meet the criteria laid down in Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration and of the rights of defence. According to the applicant, the administration failed to comply with its duty of care, to observe the principle of reasonable time, to comply with the rules governing the confidentiality of the investigation, the rights of defence, the presumption of innocence and the right of access to the disciplinary file.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the non-retroactivity of coercive rules, in that the President of the Parliament and the Advisory Committee applied a coercive rule to events prior to its adoption.
                  The applicant seeks, in addition, compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained. She claims that the way in which the investigation was conducted had the effect of tarnishing her reputation and caused her to lose the opportunity to stand as a candidate in the European elections.


title: Case T-363/19: Action brought on 12 June 2019 — United Kingdom v Commission

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/62

      Action brought on 12 June 2019 — United Kingdom v Commission
      (Case T-363/19)
      (2019/C 263/68)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, Agent, P. Baker QC and T. Johnston, Barrister)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul European Commission Decision C(2019) 2526 of 2 April 2019 on the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment: identification of the wrong reference system.

                              —

                              The applicant argues that the Commission erred when it held that the Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules provide the proper framework for an examination of comparability (Recital 107 in the preamble to the contested decision).

                              —

                              The UK operates a largely territorial corporation tax (CT) system: in general, only profits derived from the UK are taxable. The relevant starting point, therefore, is that no tax is payable in respect of the profits of any overseas subsidiaries. The CFC legislation deviates from this position and establishes a number of exceptional circumstances in which a CFC charge may be payable. The proper reference system, therefore, is the framework of CT as a whole. The applicant argues that the Commission erred when it selected an artificially narrow reference framework

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the exemptions contained in Chapter 9 of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 are not derogations.

                              —

                              The objective of the CFC rules is to impose a CFC charge in respect only of those arrangements that pose a high risk of abuse/artificial diversion. The UK selected a legislative technique whereby it: (i) began with a broad and inclusive definition of CFCs, and (ii) excluded the overwhelming majority of profits derived from CFCs, in order to identify only the narrow category of profits that present a risk of abuse/artificial diversion. Chapters 5 and 9 of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 operate together to identify those arrangements that present a high risk of abuse/artificial diversion.

                              —

                              It is further argued that the Commission manifestly erred when it held that the said Chapter 9 Exemptions are a derogation, because it focused on the legislative technique employed, not the underlying objectives of the measure.

                              —

                              In the applicant’s view, the Commission also held — wrongly — that there was no relevant distinction between Qualifying Loan Relationships (QLRs) and non-QLRs. The UK Government is uniquely well placed to determine which kinds of arrangements present a high risk of abuse/artificial diversion. The Commission, it is alleged:

                                          a.

                                          erred in law when it failed to grant the UK Government a suitable margin of appreciation when assessing that issue; and

                                          b.

                                          manifestly erred in its assessment of the arrangements in question.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding selectivity.

                              —

                              The Commission was wrong to find that the United Kingdom should have relied only on a ‘significant people functions’ (SPF) test, as opposed to the said Chapters 5 and 9 operating together. It was also wrong to reject the assessment that an SPF-based approach alone was equally complex to administer as an approach based on capital investment from the UK.

                              —

                              The applicant further maintains that the Commission also erred when it rejected the position of the UK that the said Chapter 9 exemptions were an appropriate, proportionate and administratively workable response to the judgment of the Grand Chamber in Cadbury Schweppes plc and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, (Case C-196/04, EU:C:2006:544).

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that there is no effect on intra-EU trade.

                              —

                              The applicants argue, finally, that the Commission erred when it held that the said Chapter 9 Exemptions granted a ‘benefit’ to any company so as to affect intra-EU trade. Rather they provide, in the applicant’s view, a mechanism by which a CFC charge is imposed on UK-resident companies in a small number of cases. At the relevant time (2013) there was no Union-wide obligation to levy tax on the profits of CFCs, and the Commission has failed to demonstrate that the said Chapter 9 Exemptions provided any advantage, when compared to the obligations imposed in other Member States, so as to affect intra-EU trade.


title: Case T-364/19: Action brought on 17 June 2019 — Moretti v Parliament

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/64

      Action brought on 17 June 2019 — Moretti v Parliament
      (Case T-364/19)
      (2019/C 263/69)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Luigi Moretti (Nembro, Italy) (represented by: M. Paniz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the communiqué of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance implementing Resolution No 14/2018 of 12 July 2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and, in any event,

                  —

                  annul the redetermination and recalculation of the life annuity disbursed by the European Parliament;

                  —

                  accordingly, declare that the applicant is entitled to the maintenance of the life annuity in question in so far as it was accrued and is being accrued on the basis of the legislation in force prior to Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber [of Deputies] and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and order the European Parliament to pay him all the sums unduly withheld, adjusted for inflation, together with statutory interest from the date of withholding until the date of payment;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and immediately to restore in full the original amount of the life annuity, and to pay compensation for all damages if and to the extent that damages are payable to the applicant; and

                  —

                  in any event, order the Parliament to pay all costs, lawyers’ fees, plus VAT, taxes, duties and flat-rate charges.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/19, Santini v Parliament.


title: Case T-365/19: Action brought on 17 June 2019 — Capraro v Parliament

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/65

      Action brought on 17 June 2019 — Capraro v Parliament
      (Case T-365/19)
      (2019/C 263/70)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Patrizia Capraro (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Paniz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the communiqué of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance implementing Resolution No 14/2018 of 12 July 2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and, in any event,

                  —

                  annul the redetermination and recalculation of the life annuity disbursed by the European Parliament;

                  —

                  accordingly, declare that the applicant is entitled to the maintenance of the life annuity in question in so far as it was accrued and is being accrued on the basis of the legislation in force prior to Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber [of Deputies] and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and order the European Parliament to pay her all the sums unduly withheld, adjusted for inflation, together with statutory interest from the date of withholding until the date of payment;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and immediately to restore in full the original amount of the life annuity, and to pay compensation for all damages if and to the extent that damages are payable to the applicant; and

                  —

                  in any event, order the Parliament to pay all costs, lawyers’ fees, plus VAT, taxes, duties and flat-rate charges.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/19, Santini v Parliament.


title: Case T-366/19: Action brought on 18 June 2019 — Sboarina v Parliament

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/66

      Action brought on 18 June 2019 — Sboarina v Parliament
      (Case T-366/19)
      (2019/C 263/71)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Gabriele Sboarina (Verona, Italy) (represented by: M. Paniz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the communiqué of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance implementing Resolution No 14/2018 of 12 July 2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and, in any event,

                  —

                  annul the redetermination and recalculation of the life annuity disbursed by the European Parliament;

                  —

                  accordingly, declare that the applicant is entitled to the maintenance of the life annuity in question in so far as it was accrued and is being accrued on the basis of the legislation in force prior to Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber [of Deputies] and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and order the European Parliament to pay him all the sums unduly withheld, adjusted for inflation, together with statutory interest from the date of withholding until the date of payment;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and immediately to restore in full the original amount of the life annuity, and to pay compensation for all damages if and to the extent that damages are payable to the applicant; and

                  —

                  in any event, order the Parliament to pay all costs, lawyers’ fees, plus VAT, taxes, duties and flat-rate charges.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/19, Santini v Parliament.


title: Case T-370/19: Action brought on 19 June 2019 — Spain v Commission

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/67

      Action brought on 19 June 2019 — Spain v Commission
      (Case T-370/19)
      (2019/C 263/72)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 March 2019.

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action is brought against the Commission Decision of 18 March 2019 on the participation of the National Regulatory Authority of Kosovo in the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications. (1)

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

                  1.

                  First plea, alleging infringement of Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009, (2) in so far as that article permits only the Board of Regulators, the working groups and the Management Board to be open to the participation of regulatory authorities of third countries.

                  2.

                  Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971, in so far as there is no agreement as to the Regulatory Authority of Kosovo’s participation in BEREC.

                  3.

                  Third plea, alleging infringement of Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971, in so far as the European Commission has deviated from the established procedure for participation of the regulatory authorities of third countries in BEREC. This also led to the adoption of a legal act with no legal basis whatsoever and created legal obligations in respect of third parties, without specific powers having been conferred to that effect.

         (1)  OJ 2019 C 115, p. 26.

         (2)  OJ 2018 L 321, p. 1.


title: Case T-371/19: Action brought on 18 June 2019 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Forest (FAKE DUCK)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/68

      Action brought on 18 June 2019 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Forest (FAKE DUCK)
      (Case T-371/19)
      (2019/C 263/73)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: A. Visentin, M. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Forest Srl (Milan, Italy)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark FAKE DUCK — Application for registration No 15 912 496

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2019 in Case R 1117/2018-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the action to be well founded for the reasons set out in the application and, accordingly;

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to award EU trade mark No 015912496 also for Classes 18 and 25;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Failure to carry out an assessment of the actual ways the goods are purchased.


title: Case T-372/19: Action brought on 20 June 2019 — Cellai v Parliament

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/69

      Action brought on 20 June 2019 — Cellai v Parliament
      (Case T-372/19)
      (2019/C 263/74)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Marco Cellai (Florence, Italy) (represented by: M. Paniz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the communiqué of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance implementing Resolution No 14/2018 of 12 July 2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and, in any event,

                  —

                  annul the redetermination and recalculation of the life annuity disbursed by the European Parliament;

                  —

                  accordingly, declare that the applicant is entitled to the maintenance of the life annuity in question in so far as it was accrued and is being accrued on the basis of the legislation in force prior to Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber [of Deputies] and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and order the European Parliament to pay him all the sums unduly withheld, adjusted for inflation, together with statutory interest from the date of withholding until the date of payment;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and immediately to restore in full the original amount of the life annuity, and to pay compensation for all damages if and to the extent that damages are payable to the applicant; and

                  —

                  in any event, order the Parliament to pay all costs, lawyers’ fees, plus VAT, taxes, duties and flat-rate charges.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/19, Santini v Parliament.


title: Case T-385/19: Action brought on 25 June 2019 — Mazzone v Parliament

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/46

      Action brought on 25 June 2019 — Mazzone v Parliament
      (Case T-385/19)
      (2019/C 270/48)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Antonio Mazzone (Naples, Italy) (represented by: M. Paniz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the communication of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance implementing Resolution No 14/2018 of 12 July 2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and, in any event,

                  —

                  annul the redetermination and recalculation of the life annuity disbursed by the European Parliament;

                  —

                  accordingly, declare that the applicant is entitled to the maintenance of the life annuity in question in so far as it was accrued and is being accrued on the basis of the legislation in force prior to Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber [of Deputies] and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and order the European Parliament to pay him all the sums unduly withheld, adjusted for inflation, together with statutory interest from the date of withholding until the date of payment;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and immediately to restore in full the original amount of the life annuity, and to pay compensation for all damages if and to the extent that damages are payable to the applicant; and,

                  —

                  in any event, order the Parliament to pay all costs, lawyers’ fees, plus VAT, taxes, duties and flat-rate charges.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-345/19, Santini v Parliament


title: Case T-388/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/47

      Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament
      (Case T-388/19)
      (2019/C 270/49)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (Waterloo, Belgium) and Antoni Comín i Oliveres (Waterloo) (represented by: P. Bekaert, lawyer, B. Emmerson QC, G. Boye and S. Bekaert, lawyers)

         Defendants: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Parliament’s decision to deny the applicants’ access to the special reception service set up for elected members of Parliament and the instruction of the President of the Parliament of 29 May 2019, which prevented them from submitting the written declaration required by Rule 3(2) of the Rules of Procedure;

                  —

                  annul the Parliament’s decision, as confirmed by the letter without legal basis of the President of the Parliament of 27 June 2019, not to take note of the results officially declared by Spain of the election to the European Parliament of 26 May 2019, and the subsequent decision to take note of a different and incomplete list of elected members notified on 17 June 2019 by the Spanish authorities, which does not include the applicants;

                  —

                  annul the Parliament’s decision to treat the communication of the Spanish Electoral Commission of 20 June 2019 as depriving of effect the declaration of the applicants as elected members of Parliament, which amounts to an unlawful declaration of a vacancy that violates Article 13 of the 1976 Electoral Act, attributable to the Parliament;

                  —

                  annul the Parliament’s decision, as confirmed by the letter without legal basis of the President of the Parliament of 27 June 2019, refusing to guarantee, pursuant to Rule 3(2) of its Rules of Procedure, the right of the applicants to take their seats in Parliament and on its bodies and to enjoy all the rights attaching thereto from the date of the first sitting and until a ruling has been given on the disputes referred both to Parliament and to the judicial authorities of Spain;

                  —

                  annul the President of the Parliament’s decision, as confirmed by the letter without legal basis of the President of the Parliament of 27 June 2019, refusing to assert the privileges and immunities of the applicants under Article 9 of Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all costs of these proceedings, and in accordance with Article 340, second paragraph, TFEU, order the defendant to pay compensation for the damages suffered: the loss of monthly salary granted to the members of the European Parliament, plus 1 symbolic euro for the moral damages.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Parliament’s decision to deny the applicants access to the special reception service set up for elected members of Parliament and the instruction of the President of the Parliament of 29 May 2019 infringe Articles 20, 21 and 39(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Charter’).

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Parliament’s decision not to take note of the results officially declared by Spain of the election to the European Parliament of 26 May 2019, and the subsequent decision to take note of a different and incomplete list of elected members notified on 20 June 2019 by the Spanish authorities, which does not include the applicants, infringe Article 12 of the 1976 Electoral Act and Article 3(2) of the European Council Decision 2018/937 (1), in connection with Article 39(2) of the Charter, Article 10(1) and (2) TEU, Article 14(2) and (3) TEU and Article 1(3) of the 1976 Electoral Act.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Parliament’s decision to treat the communication of the Spanish Electoral Commission of 20 June 2019 as depriving of effect the declaration of the applicants as elected members of Parliament, amounts to an unlawful declaration of a vacancy that violates Article 13 of the 1976 Electoral Act, attributable to Parliament, that infringes Articles 6(2), 8 and 13 of the 1976 Electoral Act, in connection with Article 39(2) of the Charter, Article 10(1) and (2) TEU, Article 14(2) and (3) TEU and Article 1(3) of the 1976 Electoral Act.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Parliament’s decision refusing to guarantee, pursuant to Rule 3(2) of its Rules of Procedure, the right of the applicants to take their seats in Parliament and on its bodies and to enjoy all the rights attaching thereto from the date of the first sitting and until a ruling has been given on the disputes referred both to Parliament and to the judicial authorities of Spain, infringes Rule 3(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament and Articles 5(1) and 12 of the 1976 Electoral Act, in connection with Article 39(2) of the Charter, Article 10(1) and (2) TEU, Article 14(2) and (3) TEU and Article 1(3) of the 1976 Electoral Act.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the President’s decision refusing to assert the privileges and immunities of the applicants under Article 9 of Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, infringes Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Article 6(2) of the 1976 Electoral Act and Article 9 of the said Protocol in connection with Article 39(2) of the Charter, Article 10(1) and (2) TEU, Article 14(2) and (3) TEU, and Article 1(3) of the 1976 Electoral Act.

         (1)  European Council Decision (EU) 2018/937 of 28 June 2018 establishing the composition of the European Parliament (OJ L 165I, 2.7.2018, p. 1).