title: Case T-297/19: Order of the General Court of 20 December 2019 — Dragomir v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Rule of law — Independence of the judiciary — Right to a fair trial — Protection of personal data — Failure by the Commission to adopt measures to ensure that Romania fulfils its obligations — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/44

      Order of the General Court of 20 December 2019 — Dragomir v Commission
      (Case T-297/19) (1)

      (Non-contractual liability - Rule of law - Independence of the judiciary - Right to a fair trial - Protection of personal data - Failure by the Commission to adopt measures to ensure that Romania fulfils its obligations - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
      (2020/C 61/56)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Parties

         Applicant: Daniel Dragomir (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: R. Chiriță, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and H. Stancu, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s failure to fulfil its obligations to ensure that Romania respects the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and the right to a fair trial and of the Commission’s failure to fulfil its obligations relating to the protection of personal data.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Mr Daniel Dragomir shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.


title: Case T-319/19: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2019 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Amendment of the voluntary additional pension scheme — Regulatory act — Deadline for bringing an action — Out of time — Act not open to challenge — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/45

      Order of the General Court of 10 December 2019 — Gollnisch v Parliament
      (Case T-319/19) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Institutional law - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Amendment of the voluntary additional pension scheme - Regulatory act - Deadline for bringing an action - Out of time - Act not open to challenge - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)
      (2020/C 61/57)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

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

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018, C 466, p. 8), the letter of 26 March 2019 from the President of the Parliament rejecting the administrative appeal brought against the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament and all acts adopted as a consequence thereof.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     Mr Bruno Gollnisch shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

         (1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.


title: Case T-360/19: Order of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Jalkh v Parliament (Action for annulment — Institutional law — European Parliament legislative resolution — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/46

      Order of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Jalkh v Parliament
      (Case T-360/19) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Institutional law - European Parliament legislative resolution - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)
      (2020/C 61/58)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Z. Nagy and S. Lucente, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of 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).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     Mr Jean-François Jalkh shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.


title: Case T-654/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 December 2019 — FF v Commission (Interim relief — Law governing the institutions — Liability of the European Union — Photograph of a man used as a health warning — Action for damages — Application for interim measures — Necessity — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/46

      Order of the President of the General Court of 12 December 2019 — FF v Commission
      (Case T-654/19 R)
      (Interim relief - Law governing the institutions - Liability of the European Union - Photograph of a man used as a health warning - Action for damages - Application for interim measures - Necessity - Inadmissibility)
      (2020/C 61/59)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: FF (represented by: A. Fittante, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rubene and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for an order that an expert’s report be obtained as an interim measure.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The application for interim measures is refused.

                  2.

                     Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-411/18: Action brought on 13 December 2019 – WM v Commission

text:
               24.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/47

      Action brought on 13 December 2019 – WM v Commission
      (Case T-411/18)
      (2020/C 61/60)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: WM (represented by: B. Entringer, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the selection board of 27 September 2017 in open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 not to include the applicant on the reserve list;

                  —

                  annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 April 2018 rejecting complaint No R/75/17;

                  —

                  award the applicant an amount of no less than EUR 25 000 in damages;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment related to employment and occupation.

                  —

                  The applicant refers to Article 5 of Directive 2000/78, (1) and to Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in support of his plea, and argues that the defendant failed to undertake the required individual assessment of the applicant’s needs.

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


title: Case C-60/19 P: Appeal brought on 24 January 2019 by the Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2018 in Case T-829/16, Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/36

      Appeal brought on 24 January 2019 by the Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2018 in Case T-829/16, Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament

      (Case C-60/19 P)
      (2019/C 93/47)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (represented by: A. Varaut, avocat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal;

                  —

                  annul the decision of the European Parliament of 12 September 2016 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year;

                  —

                  order the Parliament to pay the full costs, and

                  —

                  make an order as to the amount to be awarded to the appellant in relation to the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (MENL) edited a poster relating to the migration crisis and the Schengen agreement featuring its logo, together with those, in a much smaller size, of the Front National and the Vlaams Belang.
      The Parliament declared ineligible the expenditure relating to that poster, considering that it constituted an unfair advantage for a national political party.
      By the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the MENL’s action for annulment of that decision.
      The MENL seeks to have the judgment under appeal set aside because of the following errors of law:

                  —

                  The facts of the case have been distorted, since, further to its finding that the Bureau of the Parliament was not aware of the MENL’s defence submissions, the General Court nonetheless found that the latter had been able to defend itself because its defence submissions had been forwarded to an assistant of one of the members of the Bureau;

                  —

                  Article 41 of the Charter, Article 16 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and Article 8 of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 29 March 2004 laying down the procedures for implementing Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (1) were infringed, in that the General Court found that the decision-making work of the Parliament’s services can replace a decision of the Bureau of the Parliament;

                  —

                  The General Court erred in rejecting the plea of illegality of Article 7 of Regulation No 2004/2003, raised pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, by ruling that the content of the prohibition on indirect funding is an indeterminate legal notion while acknowledging that it applied that notion;

                  —

                  The General Court misapplied Article 7 of Regulation No 2004/2003 in finding that the presence of the logo of a political party, whatever its size, on a poster of a European political party constituted, as such, illegal direct funding of that party.

         (1)  OJ 2003 L 297, p. 1.


title: Case T-331/18: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2019 — Szécsi and Somossy v Commission (Action for damages — Law governing the institutions — Failure by the Commission to adopt appropriate measures to ensure compliance, by Hungarian courts, with Article 13 of Directive 2005/29/EC and the relevant national transposition measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/62

      Order of the General Court of 16 January 2019 — Szécsi and Somossy v Commission
      (Case T-331/18) (1)

      ((Action for damages - Law governing the institutions - Failure by the Commission to adopt appropriate measures to ensure compliance, by Hungarian courts, with Article 13 of Directive 2005/29/EC and the relevant national transposition measure - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 93/81)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: István Szécsi (Szeged, Hungary) and Nóra Somossy (Szeged) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Bertelmann and N. Ruiz García, 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 breach by the Commission of its supervisory obligation.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Mr István Szécsi and Ms Nóra Somossy shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: Case T-436/18: Order of the General Court of 23 January 2019 — Prigent v Commission (Action for annulment — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Refusal of the Commission to bring infringement proceedings — Act not open to challenge — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/62

      Order of the General Court of 23 January 2019 — Prigent v Commission
      (Case T-436/18) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Decision to take no further action on a complaint - Refusal of the Commission to bring infringement proceedings - Act not open to challenge - No direct concern - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 93/82)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of 23 May 2018 not to take any further action on the applicant’s complaint seeking a declaration that the French authorities infringed Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (OJ 2009 L 335, p. 1).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Mr Claude Prigent shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.


title: Case T-557/18: Order of the General Court of 10 January 2019 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Beko (BECON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/63

      Order of the General Court of 10 January 2019 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Beko (BECON)
      (Case T-557/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 93/83)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Beko plc (Watford, United Kingdom)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2018 (Case R 41/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Beko plc and LG Electronics, Inc.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

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

                  2.

                  LG Electronics, Inc. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.


title: Case T-574/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 January 2019 — Agrochem-Maks v Commission (Application for interim measures — Plant-protection products — Active substance oxasulfuron — Non-renewal of approval for placing on the market — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/64

      Order of the President of the General Court of 21 January 2019 — Agrochem-Maks v Commission
      (Case T-574/18 R)
      ((Application for interim measures - Plant-protection products - Active substance oxasulfuron - Non-renewal of approval for placing on the market - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency - Balancing of interests))
      (2019/C 93/84)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by S. Pappas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Lewis, I. Naglis and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1019 of 18 July 2018 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance oxasulfuron, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2018 L 183, p. 14).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-751/18: Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Daimler v Commission

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/64

      Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Daimler v Commission
      (Case T-751/18)
      (2019/C 93/85)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Wimmer, C. Arhold and G. Ollinger, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Decision CLIMA/C4/WB/sg Ares(2018) Reference Ares(2018)5413709 of 22 October 2018 taken under Article 12(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, (1) and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 12(1)(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 in conjunction with Article 1(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158 (2)

                              —

                              Within the context of the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant infringed Article 12(1)(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 in conjunction with Article 1(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158, since in the context of the verification of CO2 savings it diverged from the authorised procedure in so far as it applied an inaccurate Willans’ factor.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 12(1)(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 in conjunction with Article 1(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158 in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011

                              —

                              Within the context of the second plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant infringed Article 12(1)(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 in conjunction with Article 1(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158 in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, since in the context of the verification procedure adopted by it for the ad-hoc review it disregarded the essential specific preconditions.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 12(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011

                              —

                              Within the context of the third plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant infringed Article 12(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, in so far as it ordered the exclusion of eco-innovation with respect to the previous year (2017), although the regulations expressly permits a decision on exclusion only with respect to the subsequent year.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to be heard

                              —

                              Within the context of the fourth plea in law, it is claimed that the applicant’s right to be heard in accordance with the requirements of the general legal principle of observance of the rights of the defence and those of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights was infringed. The defendant authorised an exchange of legal positions, but thereby adopted the contested decision.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons

                              —

                              Within the context of the fifth plea in law, it is claimed that the decision is not duly justified in accordance with the requirements of Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In the contested decision, the defendant merely vaguely referred to discrepancies in the testing methodology, but failed to take a position on the decisive question whether and to what extent the testing methodology required a specific preconditioning and whether the defendant approved such a testing methodology in Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158.

         (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 of 25 July 2011 establishing a procedure for the approval and certification of innovative technologies for reducing CO 2 emissions from passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 19).

         (2)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158 of 30 January 2015 on the approval of two Robert Bosch GmbH high efficient alternators as the innovative technologies for reducing CO 2 emissions from passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2015 L 26, p. 31).


title: Case T-755/18: Action brought on 22 December 2018 — FL Brüterei M-V and Others v Commission

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/65

      Action brought on 22 December 2018 — FL Brüterei M-V and Others v Commission
      (Case T-755/18)
      (2019/C 93/86)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: FL Brüterei M-V GmbH (Finkenthal, Germany), Erdegut GmbH (Finkenthal), Ökofarm Groß Markow GmbH (Lelkendorf, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Article 1(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1584 (1) of 22 October 2018, published under L 264/1 in the Official Journal of the European Union on 23 October 2018, which amended Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (2) as follows: ‘in Article 42(b), the date “31 December 2018” is replaced by “31 December 2020”’;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay EUR 2 469 503,44 to FL Brüterei M-V GmbH plus default interest from the date of notification of the action at the rate of eight percentage points per annum above the base rate of the European Central Bank; and

                  —

                  rule that the defendant is under an obligation to compensate the applicants for the additional harm caused to them by the Commission’s adoption of a further two-year exception with Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1584, which, when organic pullets ‘are not available’, permits non-organic pullets to be brought into organic pullet livestock, without, having regard to the Commission’s duty to keep that exception ‘to a minimum’ under Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, (3) the use of the exception requiring that no hatcheries within a radius of up to 700 kilometres from the location of the pullet farm supply organic pullets, and that proof of the lack of availability of organic pullets is to be provided through the unsuccessful placement of orders with three hatcheries that are known suppliers of organic pullets and not through demand at hatcheries that are known for not supplying organic pullets.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The action is based on the following pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law: invalidity of the regulatory act

                              —

                              In the context of the first plea in law, the applicants claim that the defendant failed to fulfil its duty to keep exceptions to the principle laid down by Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, according to which young animals for organic livestock production must be born and raised on organic holdings, to a minimum.

                              —

                              In that regard, it is submitted that the extension of the exception by two years infringes the requirement in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 to keep exceptions to a minimum. In the applicants’ view, the lack of qualitative conditions and limits makes possible an abusive practice, as the defendant found in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law: liability for administrative wrongdoing under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU

                              —

                              In the context of the second plea in law, it is submitted that the defendant failed to ensure compliance by the Netherlands with the rule in Article 42(b) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008.

                              —

                              It that regard, it is submitted that the applicants suffered losses of income on account of the defendant’s deficient conduct, since the defendant failed to urge the Dutch authorities properly to conduct the bringing of organic pullets into organic pullet livestock.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law: liability for wrongdoing in the exercise of implementing powers
                  In the context of the third plea in law, the applicants claim that, by further adopting an exception that is merely limited in time and is not subject to any qualitative conditions and requirements, the defendant failed to respect the requirements of Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and acted outwith the powers conferred on it.

         (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1584 of 22 October 2018 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (OJ 2018 L 264, p. 1).

         (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (OJ 2008 L 250, p. 1).

         (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1).


title: Case T-756/18: Action brought on 28 December 2018 — AG v Europol

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/67

      Action brought on 28 December 2018 — AG v Europol
      (Case T-756/18)
      (2019/C 93/87)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: AG (represented by: C. Abrar, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the defendant’s implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 2 July 2018;

                  —

                  order the defendant to issue to the applicant a duly reasoned and lawful decision on his claim for a share of the Europol Pension Fund; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all of the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law: general infringement of the obligation to state reasons

                              —

                              In the context of the first plea in law, the applicant submits that his request concerning (i) the transfer of an administrative act by which the defendant applied Decision (EU) 2015/1889 (1) to the applicant and (ii) the statement of the reasons on which that administrative act is based together with an explanation as to why a significant part of the assets of the pension fund was distributed to the Member States, was implicitly rejected.

                              —

                              In that regard, it is claimed that the defendant failed to fulfil its duties in accordance with the principles of good European administrative practice and in accordance with Article 296 TFEU. The applicant also has an interest in bringing proceedings because only a reasoned decision on his rights to the Europol Pension Fund would enable him to assess the lawfulness of the allocation and the implementation of any further claims.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law: collateral review of Decision (EU) 2015/1889

                              —

                              In the context of the second plea in law, it is submitted that the supposed basis of the decision not taken could also transpire in the course of judicial review to be vitiated by an error of assessment and therefore unlawful. To that extent, it is particularly necessary to have an explanation as to why significant parts of the Europol Pension Fund were distributed to the EU Member States.

                              —

                              It is further submitted that the Court could, in the interests of procedural economy and for the avoidance of any further judicial proceedings, issue to the defendant indications as to the unlawfulness of Decision (EU) 2015/1889, since the collateral review of that decision might not succeed in the absence of a reasoned decision.

         (1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/1889 of 8 October 2015 on the dissolution of the Europol Pension Fund (OJ 2015 L 276, p. 60).


title: Case T-760/18: Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO — New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX BRENT)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/68

      Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO — New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX BRENT)
      (Case T-760/18)
      (2019/C 93/88)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: R. Hoy, Solicitor, and J. Bowhill, QC)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark NYMEX BRENT — Application for registration No 15 333 891

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2018 in Case R 102/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-6/19: Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Irish Wind Farmers’ Association and Others v Commission

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/69

      Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Irish Wind Farmers’ Association and Others v Commission
      (Case T-6/19)
      (2019/C 93/89)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg (Kilkenny, Ireland), Carrons Windfarm Ltd (Shanagolden, Ireland), Foyle Windfarm Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) and Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (Bunclody, Ireland) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the letter of the European Commission dated 25 October 2018 regarding case SA.44671 Ireland — Alleged illegal State aid granted to the fossil fuel sector in the form of reduced property tax rates;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, namely that the Commission failed to open the formal investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation 2015/1589, (1) notwithstanding doubts as to the existence of State aid, thereby depriving the applicants of their procedural rights. This plea comprises two branches:

                  1.

                  First branch: the Commission should have adopted a formal decision. The Commission has not conducted a proper examination of the complaint as required under its own rules and the contested act has been adopted in contravention of the provisions of Regulation 2015/1589.

                  2.

                  Second branch: the Commission should have had serious doubts as to the classification of the measure as aid and accordingly opened the formal investigation under Article 4(4) of Regulation 2015/1589, in particular and inter alia as the Commission misunderstood the scope of the complaint, failed to adequately examine all the information provided by the complainant in the context of the complaint, did not properly examine the measure, and followed the wrong approach regarding the assessment of selectivity and did not examine the other requirements laid down in Article 107 TFEU.

         (1)  Council Regulation 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).


title: Case T-10/19: Action brought on 4 January 2019 — United States Seafoods v EUIPO (UNITED STATES SEAFOODS)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/69

      Action brought on 4 January 2019 — United States Seafoods v EUIPO (UNITED STATES SEAFOODS)
      (Case T-10/19)
      (2019/C 93/90)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: United States Seafoods LLC (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative sign UNITED STATES SEAFOODS — Application for registration No 1 365 398

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2018 in Case R 817/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

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


title: Case T-17/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Giulia Moi v Parliament

text:
                  11.3.2019

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 93/70

         Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Giulia Moi v Parliament
         (Case T-17/19)
         (2019/C 93/91)
         Language of the case: Italian

            Parties

            Applicant: Giulia Moi ( XX (*1), Italy) (represented by: M. Contini, lawyer)

            Defendant: European Parliament

            Form of order sought

         The applicant claims that the Court should:

                     —

                     principally, annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 12 November 2018, confirming the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 2 October 2018, which imposed on Giulia Moi the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 12 days on the ground that she psychologically harassed her two accredited parliamentary assistants;

                     —

                     in the alternative, in the unlikely and disputed event that the main form of order sought is not granted, and without prejudice to any appeal, hold that the disciplinary penalty imposed is excessive and/or disproportionate and, consequently, replace it by the penalty laid down in Rule 166(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament;

                     —

                     in any event, order the European Parliament to provide redress, to be determined on an equitable basis by the Court, in the form of the payment of compensation to AE in the amount of EUR 50 000 — or such greater or lesser amount as may be deemed appropriate by the Court — and order the President to communicate that information publicly in the plenary session of the European Parliament;

                     —

                     order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

            Pleas in law and main arguments

         In support of the action, the applicant claims infringement of the principle of the right to a fair hearing, due process and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                     1.

                     It must be noted that the disciplinary penalty in question — apparently justified by the mere reference to the report of the Advisory Committee, which, in turn and without giving any reasons, characterises the applicant’s conduct as amounting to ‘psychological harassment’ without adducing any proof — is unfounded.

                     2.

                     It is also clear that the Bureau of the European Parliament manifestly misused its powers and manifestly exercised its authority improperly, in that the facts which it is assumed were relied on by the assistants subject to the alleged harassment cannot be regarded as constituting psychological harassment for the purposes of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations.

                     3.

                     The Bureau of the European Parliament, for its part, erred and misrepresented the facts which are the subject of the decision in the light of the definition of psychological harassment as laid down in Article 12 of the Staff Regulations. Such harassment means ‘improper conduct’ in the form of physical behaviour, spoken or written language, gestures or other acts, which takes place ‘over a period, is repetitive or systematic’, resulting from intentional repeated and/or confirmatory actions that may undermine the personality, dignity or physical or psychological integrity of a person.

                     4.

                     The concept of harassment having been defined, it follows from the documents in the file that the applicant’s conduct does not in any way constitute a case of ‘harassment’ and that the limited complaints, which, moreover, covered a very short period of time, relate to the completion by the assistants of their tasks and their presence in the office, and are the result of retaliation against the applicant, who is guilty of having requested their dismissal.

                     5.

                     Furthermore, no external observer with normal sensitivity and knowledge of the professional context specific to members of the Parliament and their direct colleagues could ever conclude that the applicant’s alleged conduct was excessive and open to criticism to the extent that it undermined the personality, dignity or physical or psychological integrity of the assistants in question, particularly in the light of the generous remuneration granted to them by the Parliament.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.


title: Case T-21/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/71

      Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)
      (Case T-21/19)
      (2019/C 93/92)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Pablosky, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: docPrice GmbH (Koblenz, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark mediFLEX easystep — Application for registration No 15 730 898

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 76/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  reverse the contested decision;

                  —

                  reject the EUTM No 15 730 898 in its entirety as regards products included in classes 10 and 25;

                  —

                  award the costs to the applicant.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-23/19: Action brought on 14 January 2019 — Limango v EUIPO — Consolidated Artists (limango)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/72

      Action brought on 14 January 2019 — Limango v EUIPO — Consolidated Artists (limango)
      (Case T-23/19)
      (2019/C 93/93)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Limango GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Hauss-Löhde, and M. Mette, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consolidated Artists BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark limango — Application for registration No 6 943 096

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2018 in related Cases R 1844/2017-1 and R 2093/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the contested decision;

                  —

                  dismiss the opposition in its entirety;

                  —

                  order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(5) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-24/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — INC and Consorzio Stabile Sis v Commission

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/73

      Action brought on 11 January 2019 — INC and Consorzio Stabile Sis v Commission
      (Case T-24/19)
      (2019/C 93/94)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: INC SpA (Turin, Italy) and Consorzio Stabile Sis SCpA (Turin) (represented by: H.-G. Kamann, F. Louis and G. Tzifa, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission decision C(2018) 2435 final of 27 April 2018 in Cases SA. 49335 (2017/N) and SA.49336 (2017/N); (1)

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law for each of the two separate instances of alleged State aid.

                  1.

                  Plea in law in respect of Case SA.49336 (2017/N), alleging that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission failed to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU and Articles 4(4) and 6 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (2) despite the existence of serious difficulties encountered during the preliminary examination procedure as regards the compatibility of the notified individual State aid in relation to an Italian toll motorway operator (Autostrade per l'Italia SpA) with the internal market. The applicants allege that the Commission thereby breached Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 4(3) of Regulation 2015/1589.

                  2.

                  Plea in law in respect of Case SA.49335 (2017/N), alleging that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission failed to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU and Articles 4(4) and 6 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, despite the existence of serious difficulties encountered during the preliminary examination procedure as regards the compatibility of the notified individual State aid in relation to a second Italian toll motorway operator (Società Iniziative Autostradali e Servizi Spa) with the internal market. The applicants allege that the Commission thereby breached Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.

         (1)  OJ 2018 C 379, p. 3.

         (2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).


title: Case T-29/19: Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Idea Groupe v EUIPO — The Logistical Approach (Idealogistic Verhoeven Greatest care in getting it there)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/73

      Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Idea Groupe v EUIPO — The Logistical Approach (Idealogistic Verhoeven Greatest care in getting it there)
      (Case T-29/19)
      (2019/C 93/95)
      Language in which the application was lodged: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Idea Groupe (Montoir de Bretagne, France) (represented by: P. Langlais, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Logistical Approach BV (Uden, Netherlands)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark Idealogistic Verhoeven Greatest care in getting it there in the colours black, white and shades of blue — Application for registration No 14 567 184

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2018 in Case R 2064/2017-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs;

                  —

                  order the company The Logistical Approach B.V to pay the costs occasioned by its intervention, should it intervene.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-35/19: Action brought on 17 January 2019 — Benavides Torres/Council

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/74

      Action brought on 17 January 2019 — Benavides Torres/Council
      (Case T-35/19)
      (2019/C 93/96)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Antonio José Benavides Torres (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653, (2) in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that his name should be maintained on the lists set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 (3) and Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063, (4) notwithstanding the fact that he would no longer serve any role within and would not be related to the Venezuelan political or military authorities.

         (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 10).

         (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 1).

         (3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 60).

         (4)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 21).


title: Case T-36/19: Action brought on 18 January 2019 — PE Digital v EUIPO — Spark Networks Services (ElitePartner)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/75

      Action brought on 18 January 2019 — PE Digital v EUIPO — Spark Networks Services (ElitePartner)
      (Case T-36/19)
      (2019/C 93/97)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: PE Digital GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spark Networks Services GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ElitePartner — EU trade mark No 5 996 351

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2018 in Case R 614/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  alter the contested decision to the effect that the ground for invalidity under Article 59(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 does not preclude the contested EU trade mark;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the defendant and also, with regard to its intervention, the other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 59(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

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


title: Case T-40/19: Action brought on 21 January 2019 — Amigüitos pets & life v EUIPO – Société des produits Nestlé (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/76

      Action brought on 21 January 2019 — Amigüitos pets & life v EUIPO – Société des produits Nestlé (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect)
      (Case T-40/19)
      (2019/C 93/98)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Amigüitos pets & life, SA (Lorca, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect in colours white, red and black — Application for registration No 15 385 719

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2018 in Case R 272/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision in so far the contested decision accepted the opposition against EUTM application No 15 385 719 for goods in classes 5 and 31;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to confirm the registration of EUTM application No 15 385 719 for all goods for which the said trademark seeks protection;

                  —

                  order the intervener and, in which it may apply, the defendant, to bear the costs of the proceedings followed before the EUIPO and the General Court.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(5) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-44/19: Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Globalia Corporación Empresarial v EUIPO — Touring Club Italiano (TC Touring Club)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/77

      Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Globalia Corporación Empresarial v EUIPO — Touring Club Italiano (TC Touring Club)
      (Case T-44/19)
      (2019/C 93/99)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Globalia Corporación Empresarial, SA (Llucmajor, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Touring Club Italiano (Milan, Italy)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark TC Touring Club in colours red and light grey — Application for registration No 15 299 001

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2018 in Case R 448/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision due to infringement of Article 95(1) and (2) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, constituting a substantial procedural error; and/or

                  —

                  set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Article 47(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and enter a finding to the effect that proof of ‘genuine’ use of the earlier trade mark is insufficient or inconclusive; and/or

                  —

                  set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and enter a finding to the effect that there does not exists likelihood of confusion between the confronted trade marks;

                  —

                  order the defendant and the intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings, to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 95(1) and (2) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 47(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

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


title: Case T-46/19: Action brought on 25 January 2019 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/78

      Action brought on 25 January 2019 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
      (Case T-46/19)
      (2019/C 93/100)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision in so far as that decision imposed on the Hellenic Republic one-off and flat-rate financial corrections, amounting to a gross sum of EUR 25 092 988,84 and a net sum of EUR 24 851 438,56, following the inquiry ΑΑ/2016/013/GR with respect to area-based payments for the claim years 2015/2016 (financial years 2016 and 2017, pages 63-74 of the summary report); and order the defendant to pay the legal costs of the Hellenic Republic.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  The first plea in law is based on an infringement by the Commission of Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation No 1307/2013, (1) with respect to the interpretation and application of the term ‘permanent grassland’.

                  2.

                  The second plea in law is based on defective reasoning with respect to an infringement of Article 296 TFEU, infringement of Article 18(5) of Regulation No 640/2014, (2) of the LPIS quality assurance guidelines (Executable Test Suite (ETS) LPIS data quality measures, version 6.0), and of the principle of proportionality.

                  3.

                  The third plea in law is based on a defective statement of reasons by the defendant as to the imposition of one-off corrections in addition to the flat-rate correction.

         (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 608).

         (2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ 2014, L 181, p. 48).


title: Case T-79/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Bekat v EUIPO — Borbet (ARBET) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative EU mark ARBET — Prior national word mark BORBET — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Bekat v EUIPO — Borbet (ARBET)
      (Case T-79/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative EU mark ARBET - Prior national word mark BORBET - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 103/49)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

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

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Borbet GmbH (Hallenberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 December 2017 (Case R 1117/2017-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Borbet and Mr Bekat.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Arif Oliver Bekat to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-88/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (ARMONIE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark ARMONIE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (ARMONIE)
      (Case T-88/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ARMONIE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 103/50)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Gruppo Armonie SpA (Casalgrande, Italy) (represented by: G. Medri, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 (Case R 2063/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ARMONIE as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Gruppo Armonie SpA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-97/18: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — DeepMind Technologies v EUIPO (STREAMS) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark STREAMS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Previous EUIPO practice)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — DeepMind Technologies v EUIPO (STREAMS)
      (Case T-97/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark STREAMS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Previous EUIPO practice))
      (2019/C 103/51)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 (Case R 35/2017-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign STREAMS as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders DeepMind Technologies Ltd to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-181/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Multifit v EUIPO (TAKE CARE) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark TAKE CARE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Multifit v EUIPO (TAKE CARE)
      (Case T-181/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark TAKE CARE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 103/52)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and M. Fischer, Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2018 (Case R 845/2017-5), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign TAKE CARE as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case T-256/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Arezzo Indústria e Comércio v EUIPO (SCHUTZ) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark SCHUTZ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Arezzo Indústria e Comércio v EUIPO (SCHUTZ)
      (Case T-256/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SCHUTZ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 103/53)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Parties

         Applicant: Arezzo Indústria e Comércio, SA (Belo Horizonte, Brazil) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J.M. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2018 (Case R 661/2017-4) relating to registration of the word sign SCHUTZ as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Arezzo Indústria e Comércio, SA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


title: Case T-332/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (MARRY ME) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MARRY ME — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (MARRY ME)
      (Case T-332/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MARRY ME - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 103/54)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Marry Me Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Theado, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 (Case R 806/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MARRY ME as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Marry Me Group AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: Case T-427/18: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark SATISFYERMEN — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Duty to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN)
      (Case T-427/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark SATISFYERMEN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Duty to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 103/56)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: André Geske (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: R. Albrecht, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Sesma Merino and S. Hanne, Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 (Case R 2603/2017-1), relating to the application for registration of the figurative mark SATISFYERMEN as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr André Geske to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.


title: Case T-624/16 TO: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2019 — L’Huillier v Gollnisch and Parliament (Third-party proceedings — Rejection of the third-party applicant’s application to intervene — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/43

      Order of the General Court of 29 January 2019 — L’Huillier v Gollnisch and Parliament
      (Case T-624/16 TO) (1)

      ((Third-party proceedings - Rejection of the third-party applicant’s application to intervene - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 103/58)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Third-party applicant: Guillaume L’Huillier (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: A. Varaut, lawyer)

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

         Defendant in the main proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and L. Vétillard, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Third-party application against the judgment of 7 March 2018, Gollnisch v Parliament (T-624/16, not published, under appeal, EU:T:2018:121).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The third-party application is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Mr Guillaume L’Huillier shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

                  3.

                  Mr Bruno Gollnisch shall bear his own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


title: Case T-687/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank v ECB (Application for interim measures — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/43

      Order of the President of the General Court of 21 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank v ECB
      (Case T-687/18 R)
      ((Application for interim measures - Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency))
      (2019/C 103/59)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta’Xbiex, Malta) (represented by: O.H. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Yoo, M. Puidokas and A. Karpf, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of an act of the European Central Bank contained in an email of 10 September 2018 by which the ECB required that any communication to it by the applicant be made either through the person appointed by the Malta Financial Services Authority or with the approval of that person.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-741/18: Action brought on 18 December 2018 — ZZ v ECB

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/46

      Action brought on 18 December 2018 — ZZ v ECB
      (Case T-741/18)
      (2019/C 103/61)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Demetriou, QC, D. Piccinin, Barrister, E. Poulton, L. Carlisle, and R. Molesworth, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the ECB’s decision of 10 October 2018 regarding the proposed acquisition by the applicant of a qualifying holding in Bank A (ECB-SSM-2018-LV-2);

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging failure to show that the applicant lacked transparency in his dealings with the competent authorities.

                              —

                              The applicant contends that the evidence relied on by the ECB in the contested decision does not establish and provides no proper basis for the ECB’s finding that the applicant was not transparent such that his integrity could be called into question.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in finding that the applicant’s innocent dealings with a third party cast doubt on the applicant’s integrity.

                              —

                              The applicant contends that the ECB erred in law in finding that the applicant’s dealings with a third party cast doubt on his integrity in circumstances where the ECB accepts that the applicant had no knowledge of any wrongdoing on the part of that third party at the time and in circumstances where the applicant was an innocent victim of that wrongdoing.


title: Case T-763/18: Action brought on 30 December 2018 — Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi v European Commission

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/47

      Action brought on 30 December 2018 — Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi v European Commission
      (Case T-763/18)
      (2019/C 103/62)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant: Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi (Lazarus Kft.) (Békés, Hungary) (represented by: L. Szabó, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Principally, declare the nullity of the Decision adopted by the Commission on 20 July 2011 in case SA. 29432 — CP 290/2009 — Hungary — ‘Aid for the employment of disabled workers alleged to be unlawful due to the discriminatory nature of the legislation’ (‘the decision primarily contested’);

                  —

                  In the alternative, declare the nullity of the Decision adopted by the Commission on 25 January 2017 in case SA. 45498 (FC/2016) — ‘Complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. concerning the State aid granted between 2006 and 2012 to companies employing disabled workers’ (‘the decision contested in the alternative’);

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a plea in law in respect of each claim.

                  1.

                  First plea in law in support of the principal claim: error of law and incorrect assessment of the available evidence
                  The Hungarian authorities granted unlawful State aid to 21 competitors of the applicant, in breach of Article 107(1) TFEU. That aid was not intended solely for the additional costs incurred in employing disabled workers, but was also to cover the general costs of the recipient undertakings, thereby distorting competition. In the decision primarily contested, the Commission indicated that the total amount of the aid granted to the recipient undertakings does not exceed the total amount of the aid that may be granted in accordance with Articles 41 and 42 of the General block exemption Regulation, (1) and that, in principle, the contested aid is therefore compatible with the internal market for the purposes of Article 107(3) TFEU. The decision primarily contested does not address the injurious effects for the applicant of the national measures by which the aid was allocated, and thereby infringes the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law in support of the subsidiary claim: error of law and manifest distortion of the available evidence
                  The Commission erred in law and manifestly distorted the available evidence by stating, in the decision contested in the alternative, that the complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. contains no new legal or factual elements giving rise to any changes in the Commission’s assessment in case SA. 29432 — CP 290/2009. The decision contested in the alternative does not address the injurious effects for the applicant of the national measures by which the aid was allocated, and thereby infringes the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU.

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles [107] and [108 TFEU] (OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3).


title: Case T-13/19: Action brought on 8 January 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/48

      Action brought on 8 January 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission
      (Case T-13/19)
      (2019/C 103/63)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and O. Serdula, Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  rule that the European Commission has breached its obligations under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by failing, in connection with the conditional provision of traditional own resources of CZK 40 482 255 by the Czech Republic, to bring proceedings against the Czech Republic for failure to fulfil obligations in this connection or to return the sum at issue, and

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.
      The Czech Republic is of the opinion that the obligation upon the European Commission to take the abovementioned action follows from the principle of sincere cooperation provided for in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with the right to effective judicial protection laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
      Having regard to the fact that, according to case-law of the Court of Justice, (1) only the Court of Justice may authoritatively settle, in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, a dispute between a Member State and the European Commission in the area of traditional own resources, the European Commission must, in connection with the execution of the conditional payment in question, bring such proceedings without undue delay or return that payment if it finds no grounds upon which to bring such proceedings.
      The Czech Republic paid the sum at issue into the European Commission’s account as far back as 2015. However, the European Commission has not brought proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations in that case and has not returned the sum in question conditionally paid to it, even though the Czech Republic has formally called upon it to do so. The Czech Republic therefore submits that the conditions have been met for a finding that the Commission has failed to act.

         (1)  Compare judgment of 25 October 2017, Slovakia v Commission (C-593/15 P and C-594/15 P, EU:C:2017:800) and judgment of 25 October 2017, Romania v Commission (C-599/15 P, EU:C:207:801).


title: Case T-25/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — AD v ECHA

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/49

      Action brought on 11 January 2019 — AD v ECHA
      (Case T-25/19)
      (2019/C 103/64)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the defendant’s decision of 28 March 2018 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract with the ECHA;

                  —

                  annul the vacancy notice published on 9 March 2018 by the ECHA for a contractual agent FG II post, in so far as it offers a post with tasks identical to those the applicant was performing under her temporary agent contract;

                  —

                  if need be, annul also the defendant’s decision of 1 October 2018, notified to the applicant on 2 October 2018, which rejects the applicant’s complaint against the non-renewal decision;

                  —

                  order the compensation of the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a violation of the Work Instructions laid down by ECHA regarding the renewal or non-renewal process relating to contracts and of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state sufficient reasons.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to be heard.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of care.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the reasons stated by the ECHA to justify the non-renewal of the employment contract are manifestly mistaken and show a misuse of power.


title: Case C-221/18 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 — Électricité de France (EDF) v European Commission, French Republic (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — First decision of the European Commission — State aid measure incompatible with the internal market — Annulment by the General Court of the European Union — Confirmation by the Court of Justice of the European Union — Second decision of the Commission — State aid measure incompatible with the internal market — Dismissal of the application for annulment — Article 266 TFEU — Infringement of the principle of res judicata attaching to the first judgment of the General Court — Distortion of evidence — Failure of the General Court to have regard for the Commission’s obligations of diligent and impartial investigation — Failure to state reasons — Classification of the measure — New or existing aid)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/6

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 — Électricité de France (EDF) v European Commission, French Republic
      (Case C-221/18 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - First decision of the European Commission - State aid measure incompatible with the internal market - Annulment by the General Court of the European Union - Confirmation by the Court of Justice of the European Union - Second decision of the Commission - State aid measure incompatible with the internal market - Dismissal of the application for annulment - Article 266 TFEU - Infringement of the principle of res judicata attaching to the first judgment of the General Court - Distortion of evidence - Failure of the General Court to have regard for the Commission’s obligations of diligent and impartial investigation - Failure to state reasons - Classification of the measure - New or existing aid))
      (2019/C 103/06)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Électricité de France (EDF) (represented by: M. Debroux, avocat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and D. Recchia, acting as Agents), French Republic

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Électricité de France (EDF) shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.


title: Case C-561/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 4 September 2018 — Solvay Chemicals GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/6

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 4 September 2018 — Solvay Chemicals GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-561/18)
      (2019/C 103/07)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Solvay Chemicals GmbH

         Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
      By order of 6 February 2019, the Court (First Chamber) ruled as follows:
      The second subparagraph of Article 49(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) and point 20(B) of Annex IV to that regulation are invalid in so far as they systematically include the carbon dioxide (CO2) transferred to another installation for the production of precipitated calcium carbonate in the emissions of the installation for production of soda ash, regardless of whether that CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

         (1)  OJ 2012 L 181, p. 30.