title: Case C-216/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust, Coopservice Soc. coop. arl v Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Vallecamonica — Sebino (ASST), Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale del Garda (ASST), Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Valcamonica (ASST) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(5) — Article 32(2) — Award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Framework agreements — Clause extending the framework agreement to other contracting authorities — Principles of transparency and equal treatment of economic operators — No determination of the quantity covered by subsequent public procurement contracts or determination by reference to the usual requirements of the contracting authorities that are not signatories to the framework agreement — Prohibition)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/5

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust, Coopservice Soc. coop. arl v Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Vallecamonica — Sebino (ASST), Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale del Garda (ASST), Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Valcamonica (ASST)
      (Case C-216/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(5) - Article 32(2) - Award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Framework agreements - Clause extending the framework agreement to other contracting authorities - Principles of transparency and equal treatment of economic operators - No determination of the quantity covered by subsequent public procurement contracts or determination by reference to the usual requirements of the contracting authorities that are not signatories to the framework agreement - Prohibition))
      (2019/C 65/05)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust, Coopservice Soc. coop. arl

         Defendants: Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Vallecamonica — Sebino (ASST), Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale del Garda (ASST), Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Valcamonica (ASST)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Markas Srl, ATI — Zanetti Arturo & C. Srl e in proprio, Regione Lombardia

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 1(5) and the fourth subparagraph of Article 32(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that:

                  —

                  a contracting authority may act on its own behalf and on behalf of other contracting authorities that are specifically indicated but are not direct parties to a framework agreement, provided that the requirements as to advertising and legal certainty and, consequently, those relating to transparency are complied with; and

                  —

                  it cannot be accepted that contracting authorities that are not signatories to the framework agreement refrain from determining the quantity of services that may be required when they conclude contracts pursuant to the framework agreement or determine that quantity by reference to their usual requirements, because, if they do so, the principles of transparency and equal treatment of economic operators with an interest in the conclusion of that framework contract will be infringed.

         (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


title: Case C-219/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Silvio Berlusconi, Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) v Banca d’Italia, Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Acquisition of a qualifying holding in a credit institution — Procedure governed by Directive 2013/36/EU and by Regulations (EU) No 1024/2013 and No 468/2014 — Composite administrative procedure — Exclusive decision-making power of the European Central Bank (ECB) — Action brought against preparatory acts adopted by the national competent authority — Claim that the force of res judicata attaching to a national decision has been disregarded)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/6

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Silvio Berlusconi, Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) v Banca d’Italia, Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)
      (Case C-219/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Acquisition of a qualifying holding in a credit institution - Procedure governed by Directive 2013/36/EU and by Regulations (EU) No 1024/2013 and No 468/2014 - Composite administrative procedure - Exclusive decision-making power of the European Central Bank (ECB) - Action brought against preparatory acts adopted by the national competent authority - Claim that the force of res judicata attaching to a national decision has been disregarded))
      (2019/C 65/06)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Silvio Berlusconi, Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest)

         Defendants: Banca d’Italia, Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)

         Third parties: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Banca Mediolanum SpA, Holding Italiana Quarta SpA, Fin. Prog. Italia di E. Doris & C. s.a.p.a., Sirefid SpA, Ennio Doris

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 263 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national courts from reviewing the legality of decisions to initiate procedures, preparatory acts or non-binding proposals adopted by competent national authorities in the procedure provided for in Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC, in Articles 4(1)(c) and 15 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and in Articles 85 to 87 of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation). It is immaterial in that regard that a specific action for a declaration of invalidity on the ground of alleged disregard of the force of res judicata attaching to a national judicial decision has been brought before a national court.

         (1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.


title: Case C-367/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — S v EA, EB, EC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 — Article 4(2)(e) — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Article 7(1)(e) — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin — Application to amend the product specification — Ham originating from the Black Forest, Germany (‘Schwarzwälder Schinken’) — Requirements to package in the area of production — Applicability of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 or of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/7

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — S v EA, EB, EC
      (Case C-367/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Article 4(2)(e) - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 7(1)(e) - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin - Application to amend the product specification - Ham originating from the Black Forest, Germany (‘Schwarzwälder Schinken’) - Requirements to package in the area of production - Applicability of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 or of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012))
      (2019/C 65/08)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundespatentgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: S

         Defendants: EA, EB, EC

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 4(2)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, in conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 of 14 December 2006 laying down detailed rules of implementation of Regulation No 510/2006, and Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement to package a product covered by a protected geographical indication in its geographical area of production is justified, under Article 4(2)(e), if it constitutes a necessary and proportionate means to safeguard the quality of the product, to guarantee its origin or to ensure the verification of the specification of the protected geographical indication. It is for the national court to assess whether that requirement is duly justified by one of the objectives mentioned above, regarding the protected geographical indication ‘Schwarzwälder Schinken’.

         (1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.


title: Case C-374/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt B v A- Brauerei (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Real property transfer tax — Exemption — Transfers in ownership of a property occurring as a result of restructuring procedures carried out within certain groups of companies — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity — Justification)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/8

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt B v A- Brauerei
      (Case C-374/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Real property transfer tax - Exemption - Transfers in ownership of a property occurring as a result of restructuring procedures carried out within certain groups of companies - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Justification))
      (2019/C 65/09)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesfinanzhof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Finanzamt B

         Defendant: A-Brauerei

         Intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a tax advantage, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in exempting from real property transfer tax the transfer of ownership of a property which occurred because of a restructuring procedure involving only companies of the same group, linked by a shareholding of at least 95 % during a minimum, uninterrupted period of five years prior to that procedure and of five years thereafter, does not fulfil the condition relating to the selectivity of the advantage concerned, laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU.

         (1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.


title: Case C-385/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden — Germany) — Torsten Hein v Albert Holzkamm GmbH & Co. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Right to paid annual leave — Article 7(1) — Legislation of a Member State under which collective agreements may provide for account to be taken of periods of short-time working when calculating remuneration to be paid in respect of annual leave — Temporal effects of judgments ruling on interpretation)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/10

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden — Germany) — Torsten Hein v Albert Holzkamm GmbH & Co.
      (Case C-385/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Article 7(1) - Legislation of a Member State under which collective agreements may provide for account to be taken of periods of short-time working when calculating remuneration to be paid in respect of annual leave - Temporal effects of judgments ruling on interpretation))
      (2019/C 65/11)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Arbeitsgericht Verden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Torsten Hein

         Defendant: Albert Holzkamm GmbH & Co.

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of calculating remuneration for annual leave, allows collective agreements to provide for account to be taken of reductions in earnings resulting from the fact that during the reference period there were days when no work was actually performed owing to short-time working, with the consequence that the worker receives, for the duration of the minimum period of annual leave to which he is entitled under Article 7(1) of the directive, remuneration for annual leave that is lower than the normal remuneration which he receives during periods of work. It is for the referring court to interpret the national legislation, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of Directive 2003/88, in such a way that the remuneration for annual leave paid to workers in respect of the minimum annual leave provided for in Article 7(1) is not less than the average of the normal remuneration received by those workers during periods of actual work.

                  2.

                  It is not appropriate to limit the temporal effects of the present judgment and EU law must be interpreted as precluding national courts from protecting, on the basis of national law, the legitimate expectation of employers that the case-law of the highest national courts, which confirmed the lawfulness of the provisions concerning paid annual leave in the Bundesrahmentarifvertrag für das Baugewerbe (Federal collective framework agreement for the construction industry), will continue to apply.

         (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


title: Joined Cases C-412/17 and C-474/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Touring Tours und Travel GmbH (C-412/17), Sociedad de Transportes SA (C-474/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 — Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) — Articles 20 and 21 — Abolition of internal border controls in the Schengen area — Checks within the territory of a Member State — Measures having an effect equivalent to border checks — Rules of a Member State requiring a coach travel operator on routes crossing the internal borders of the Schengen area to check passengers’ passports and residence permits — Penalty — Threat to impose a recurring fine)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/11

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Touring Tours und Travel GmbH (C-412/17), Sociedad de Transportes SA (C-474/17)
      (Joined Cases C-412/17 and C-474/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) - Articles 20 and 21 - Abolition of internal border controls in the Schengen area - Checks within the territory of a Member State - Measures having an effect equivalent to border checks - Rules of a Member State requiring a coach travel operator on routes crossing the internal borders of the Schengen area to check passengers’ passports and residence permits - Penalty - Threat to impose a recurring fine))
      (2019/C 65/12)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

         Defendant: Touring Tours und Travel GmbH (C-412/17), Sociedad de Transportes SA (C-474/17)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 67(2) TFEU and Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires every coach transport undertaking providing a regular cross-border service within the Schengen area to the territory of that Member State to check the passports and residence permits of passengers before they cross an internal border in order to prevent the transport of third-country nationals not in possession of those travel documents to the national territory, and which allows, for the purposes of complying with that obligation to carry out checks, the police authorities to issue orders prohibiting such transport, accompanied by a threat of a recurring fine, against transport undertakings which have been found to have conveyed to that territory third-country nationals who were not in possession of the requisite travel documents.

         (1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.

         OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.


title: Case C-414/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — AREX CZ a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(b)(i) and (iii) — Article 3(1) — Intra-Community acquisitions of goods subject to excise duties — Article 138(1) and (2)(b) — Intra-Community supply of goods — Chain transactions with a single transport — Transaction to which the transport should be ascribed — Transport under an excise duty suspension arrangement — Impact on the classification of an intra-Community purchase)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/11

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — AREX CZ a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
      (Case C-414/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(b)(i) and (iii) - Article 3(1) - Intra-Community acquisitions of goods subject to excise duties - Article 138(1) and (2)(b) - Intra-Community supply of goods - Chain transactions with a single transport - Transaction to which the transport should be ascribed - Transport under an excise duty suspension arrangement - Impact on the classification of an intra-Community purchase))
      (2019/C 65/13)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Referring court

      Nejvyšší správní soud

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: AREX CZ a.s.

         Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 2(1)(b)(iii) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to intra-Community acquisitions of excise goods, in respect of which the excise duty is chargeable in the Member State of destination of the dispatch or transport of those goods, carried out by a taxable person whose other acquisitions are not subject to value added tax pursuant to Article 3(1) of that directive.

                  2.

                  Article 2(1)(b)(iii) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a chain of successive transactions which gave rise only to a single intra-Community transport of excise goods under an excise duty suspension arrangement, the acquisition carried out by the trader liable for payment of the excise duty in the Member State of destination of the dispatch or transport of those goods cannot be classified as an intra-Community acquisition subject to value added tax under that provision, where that transport cannot be ascribed to that acquisition.

                  3.

                  Article 2(1)(b)(i) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a chain of successive acquisitions concerning the same excise goods and which gave rise only to a single intra-Community transport of those goods under an excise duty suspension arrangement, the fact that those goods are transported under that arrangement does not constitute a decisive factor in determining to which acquisition the transport is to be ascribed for the purposes of applying value added tax under that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.


title: Case C-492/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Tübingen — Germany) — Südwestrundfunk v Tilo Rittinger, Patrick Wolter, Harald Zastera, Dagmar Fahner, Layla Sofan, Marc Schulte (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Article 108(3) TFEU — Public broadcasting institutions — Financing — Legislation of a Member State under which all adults possessing a dwelling within the country are required to pay a contribution to public broadcasters)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/13

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Tübingen — Germany) — Südwestrundfunk v Tilo Rittinger, Patrick Wolter, Harald Zastera, Dagmar Fahner, Layla Sofan, Marc Schulte
      (Case C-492/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Article 108(3) TFEU - Public broadcasting institutions - Financing - Legislation of a Member State under which all adults possessing a dwelling within the country are required to pay a contribution to public broadcasters))
      (2019/C 65/15)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landgericht Tübingen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Südwestrundfunk

         Defendants: Tilo Rittinger, Patrick Wolter, Harald Zastera, Dagmar Fahner, Layla Sofan, Marc Schulte

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that an alteration to the system of financing the public broadcasting of a Member State which, like that at issue in the main proceedings, consists in replacing a broadcasting fee payable on the basis of possession of a receiving device by a broadcasting contribution payable in particular on the basis of occupation of a dwelling or business premises does not constitute an alteration to existing aid within the meaning of that provision which should be notified to the Commission under Article 108(3) TFEU.

                  2.

                  Articles 107 and 108 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which confers on public broadcasters powers, as exceptions to the general law, allowing those broadcasters themselves to enforce claims in respect of unpaid broadcasting contributions.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case C-493/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverfassungsgericht — Germany) — proceedings brought by Heinrich Weiss and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Economic and monetary policy — Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank — Validity — Secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme — Articles 119 and 127 TFEU — Powers of the ECB and the European System of Central Banks — Maintenance of price stability — Proportionality — Article 123 TFEU — Prohibition of monetary financing of Member States in the euro area)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/14

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverfassungsgericht — Germany) — proceedings brought by Heinrich Weiss and Others
      (Case C-493/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Economic and monetary policy - Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank - Validity - Secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme - Articles 119 and 127 TFEU - Powers of the ECB and the European System of Central Banks - Maintenance of price stability - Proportionality - Article 123 TFEU - Prohibition of monetary financing of Member States in the euro area))
      (2019/C 65/16)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverfassungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Heinrich Weiss, Jürgen Heraeus, Patrick Adenauer, Bernd Lucke, Hans-Olaf Henkel, Joachim Starbatty, Bernd Kölmel, Ulrike Trebesius, Peter Gauweiler, Johann Heinrich von Stein, Gunnar Heinsohn, Otto Michels, Reinhold von Eben-Worlée, Michael Göde, Dagmar Metzger, Karl-Heinz Hauptmann, Stefan Städter, Markus C. Kerber

         Interested parties: Bundesregierung, Bundestag, Deutsche Bundesbank

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Consideration of the first to fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2015 on a secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme, as amended by Decision (EU) 2017/100 of the European Central Bank of 11 January 2017.

                  2.

                  The fifth question is inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case C-514/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Marin-Simion Sut (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 4(6) — Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant — Offence underlying the imposition of a custodial sentence in the issuing Member State being punishable in the executing Member State by fine only)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/14

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Marin-Simion Sut
      (Case C-514/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 4(6) - Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant - Offence underlying the imposition of a custodial sentence in the issuing Member State being punishable in the executing Member State by fine only))
      (2019/C 65/17)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour d’appel de Liège

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Marin-Simion Sut

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where, as in the case in the main proceedings, a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence resides in the executing Member State and has family, social and working ties in that Member State, the executing judicial authority may, for reasons related to the social rehabilitation of that person, refuse to execute that warrant, despite the fact that the offence which provides the basis for that warrant is, under that national law of the executing Member State, punishable by fine only, provided that, in accordance with its national law, that fact does not prevent the custodial sentence imposed on the person requested from actually being enforced in that Member State, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case C-530/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 — Mykola Yanovych Azarov v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds and economic resources — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Decision by an authority of a third State — Council’s obligation to verify that that decision was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/15

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 — Mykola Yanovych Azarov v Council of the European Union
      (Case C-530/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds and economic resources - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name - Decision by an authority of a third State - Council’s obligation to verify that that decision was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection))
      (2019/C 65/18)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (represented by: A. Egger and G. Lansky, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 July 2017, Azarov v Council (T-215/15, EU:T:2017:479);

                  2.

                  Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov;

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred both in the proceedings at first instance and in the present appeal.

         (1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.


title: Case C-552/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Alpenchalets Resorts GmbH v Finanzamt München Abteilung Körperschaften (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Special scheme for travel agents — Supply of a holiday residence rented from other taxable persons — Additional services — Ancillary or principal services — Reduced rate of tax — Accommodation supplied by a travel agent in his own name)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/16

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Alpenchalets Resorts GmbH v Finanzamt München Abteilung Körperschaften
      (Case C-552/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Special scheme for travel agents - Supply of a holiday residence rented from other taxable persons - Additional services - Ancillary or principal services - Reduced rate of tax - Accommodation supplied by a travel agent in his own name))
      (2019/C 65/19)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesfinanzhof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Alpenchalets Resorts GmbH

         Defendant: Finanzamt München Abteilung Körperschaften

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the mere supply by a travel agent of holiday accommodation rented from other taxable persons or such a supply of a holiday residence combined with the supply of additional ancillary services, regardless of the importance of those ancillary services, each amount to a single service covered by the special scheme for travel agents.

                  2.

                  Article 98(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of travel agent services consisting of the supply of holiday accommodation, covered by Article 307 of that directive, cannot be subject to a reduced tax rate or one of the reduced rates set out in Article 98(2).

         (1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.


title: Case C-572/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Imran Syed (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 4(1) — Distribution right — Infringement — Goods bearing a copyrighted motif intended for sale — Storage for commercial purposes — Storage facility separate from place of sale)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/16

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Imran Syed
      (Case C-572/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 4(1) - Distribution right - Infringement - Goods bearing a copyrighted motif intended for sale - Storage for commercial purposes - Storage facility separate from place of sale))
      (2019/C 65/20)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Högsta domstolen

         Party in the main proceedings

      Imran Syed

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the storage by a retailer of goods bearing a motif protected by copyright on the territory of the Member State where the goods are stored may constitute an infringement of the exclusive distribution right, as defined by that provision, when that retailer offers for sale, without the authorisation of the copyright holder, goods identical to those which he is storing, provided that the stored goods are actually intended for sale on the territory of the Member State in which that motif is protected. The distance between the place of storage and the place of sale cannot, on its own, be a decisive element in determining whether the stored goods are intended for sale on the territory of that Member State.

         (1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.


title: Case C-667/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari — Italy) — Francesca Cadeddu v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Cagliari, Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Regione autonoma della Sardegna — Agenzia regionale per il lavoro (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 2(4) — Concept of beneficiary — Article 80 — Prohibition on making a deduction or withholding sums paid — Other specific charge or charge with equivalent effect — Concept — Study grant co-financed by the European Social Fund — Treatment as income from employment — Retention on account of income tax increased by additional regional and municipal taxes)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/17

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari — Italy) — Francesca Cadeddu v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Cagliari, Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Regione autonoma della Sardegna — Agenzia regionale per il lavoro
      (Case C-667/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Article 2(4) - Concept of beneficiary - Article 80 - Prohibition on making a deduction or withholding sums paid - Other specific charge or charge with equivalent effect - Concept - Study grant co-financed by the European Social Fund - Treatment as income from employment - Retention on account of income tax increased by additional regional and municipal taxes))
      (2019/C 65/21)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Francesca Cadeddu

         Defendants: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Cagliari, Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Regione autonoma della Sardegna — Agenzia regionale per il lavoro

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 80 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, read in conjunction with Article 2(4) of that regulation, must be interpreted as not precluding national tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which applies personal income tax to the amounts awarded to natural persons in the form of study grants by the public body responsible for implementing the project selected by the managing authority for the operational programme at issue, for the purposes of Article 2(3) of that regulation, and financed through the European structural funds.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case C-17/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureș — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against Virgil Mailat, Delia Elena Mailat, Apcom Select SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 19 and 29 and Article 135(1)(l) — Transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof — Exemption for lettings of immovable property — Rental contract concerning an immovable property used for commercial purposes and the movable property necessary for that use — Supply of services relating to that immovable property which gave rise to the deduction of VAT — Adjustment)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/18

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureș — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against Virgil Mailat, Delia Elena Mailat, Apcom Select SA
      (Case C-17/18) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 19 and 29 and Article 135(1)(l) - Transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof - Exemption for lettings of immovable property - Rental contract concerning an immovable property used for commercial purposes and the movable property necessary for that use - Supply of services relating to that immovable property which gave rise to the deduction of VAT - Adjustment))
      (2019/C 65/22)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul Mureș

         Parties in the main proceedings

      Virgil Mailat, Delia Elena Mailat, Apcom Select SA

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The concept of ‘transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof’, within the meaning of Article 19 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as not covering the transaction by which an immovable property which was used for commercial purposes is let with all capital equipment and inventory items necessary for that use, even if the lessee pursues the activity of the lessor under the same name.

                  2.

                  Article 135(1)(l) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a lease contract for an immovable property which was used for commercial purposes and for all capital equipment and inventory items necessary for that use constitutes a single supply in which the letting of the immovable property is the principal supply.

         (1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.


title: Case C-51/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1) — Administrative practice of imposing VAT on the royalty payable to an author of an original work of art on the basis of the resale right)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/18

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
      (Case C-51/18) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1) - Administrative practice of imposing VAT on the royalty payable to an author of an original work of art on the basis of the resale right))
      (2019/C 65/23)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Gossement and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: G. Hesse, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by providing that the royalty payable to an author of an original work of art on the basis of the resale right is subject to value added tax, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

                  2.

                  Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case C-621/18: Judgment of the Court (Full Chamber) of 10 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh — United Kingdom) — Andy Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 50 TEU — Notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union — Consequences of the notification — Right of unilateral revocation of the notification — Conditions)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/19

      Judgment of the Court (Full Chamber) of 10 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh — United Kingdom) — Andy Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
      (Case C-621/18) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 50 TEU - Notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union - Consequences of the notification - Right of unilateral revocation of the notification - Conditions))
      (2019/C 65/24)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Andy Wightman, Ross Greer, Alyn Smith, David Martin, Catherine Stihler, Jolyon Maugham, Joanna Cherry

         Defendant: Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

         Interveners: Chris Leslie, Tom Brake

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.

         (1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.


title: Case C-370/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul de Arbitraj Instituţionalizat Galaţi (Romania) lodged on 5 June 2018 — Uniunea Naţională a Barourilor din România v Marcel-Vasile Holunga

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul de Arbitraj Instituţionalizat Galaţi (Romania) lodged on 5 June 2018 — Uniunea Naţională a Barourilor din România v Marcel-Vasile Holunga
      (Case C-370/18)
      (2019/C 65/25)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul de Arbitraj Instituţionalizat Galaţi

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Uniunea Naţională a Barourilor din România

         Defendant: Marcel-Vasile Holunga
      By Order of 13 December 2018, the Court (Eighth Chamber) declared the request for a preliminary ruling manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case C-408/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 June 2018 by Senetic S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 April 2018 in Case T-207/17: Senetic v EUIPO

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/20

      Appeal brought on 21 June 2018 by Senetic S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 April 2018 in Case T-207/17: Senetic v EUIPO
      (Case C-408/18 P)
      (2019/C 65/26)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Senetic S.A. (represented by: M. Krekora, adwokat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC
      By order of 13 December 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-409/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 June 2018 by Senetic S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 April 2018 in Case T-208/17: Senetic v EUIPO

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/20

      Appeal brought on 21 June 2018 by Senetic S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 April 2018 in Case T-208/17: Senetic v EUIPO
      (Case C-409/18 P)
      (2019/C 65/27)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Senetic S.A. (represented by: M. Krekora, adwokat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC
      By order of 13 December 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-533/18 P: Appeal brought on 14 August 2018 by Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2018 in Case T-165/17: Emcur v EUIPO

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/21

      Appeal brought on 14 August 2018 by Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2018 in Case T-165/17: Emcur v EUIPO
      (Case C-533/18 P)
      (2019/C 65/28)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems GmbH (represented by: K. Bröcker, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
      By order of 8 January 2019 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-634/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku (Poland) lodged on 11 October 2018 — Criminal proceedings against JI

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/21

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku (Poland) lodged on 11 October 2018 — Criminal proceedings against JI
      (Case C-634/18)
      (2019/C 65/29)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku

         Party to the main proceedings

      JI

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must the rule of EU law contained in Article 4(2)(a) of Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, (1) read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that that rule does not preclude the expression ‘a significant quantity of drugs’ from being interpreted on a case-by-case basis as part of the individual assessment of a national court, and that that assessment does not require the application of any objective criterion, in particular that it does not require a finding that the offender possesses drugs for the purpose of performing acts covered by Article 4(2)(a) of that framework decision, that is to say production, offering, offering for sale, distribution, brokerage, or delivery on any terms whatsoever?

                  2.

                  In so far as the Polish Law on combating drug addiction contains no precise definition of ‘a significant quantity of drugs’ and leaves the interpretation thereof to the bench adjudicating in a specific case in the exercise of its ‘judicial discretion’, are the judicial remedies necessary to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the rules of EU law contained in Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA, and in particular Article 4(2)(a) of that framework decision, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, sufficient to afford Polish citizens effective protection resulting from the rules of EU law laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking?

                  3.

                  Is the rule of national law contained in Article 62(2) of the Law on combating drug addiction compatible with EU law, and in particular with the rule contained in Article 4(2)(a) of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, and, if so, is the interpretation which the national Polish courts place on the expression ‘a significant quantity of psychotropic substances and narcotic drugs’ contrary to the rule of EU law pursuant to which a person who has committed the offence of possessing large quantities of drugs to perform activities covered by Article 2(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA is to be subject to stricter criminal liability?

                  4.

                  Is Article 62(2) of the Law on combating drug addiction, which lays down stricter criminal liability for the offence of possessing a significant quantity of psychotropic substances and narcotic drugs, as interpreted by the Polish national courts, contrary to the principles of equality and non-discrimination (Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union], read in conjunction with Article 6(1) TEU)?

         (1)  OJ 2004 L 335, p. 8.


title: Case C-671/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Chełmnie (Poland) lodged on 29 October 2018 — Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB) v ZP

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/22

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Chełmnie (Poland) lodged on 29 October 2018 — Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB) v ZP
      (Case C-671/18)
      (2019/C 65/30)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Rejonowy w Chełmnie

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (Central Fine Collection Agency, Ministry of Justice and Security) (CJIB)

         Defendant: ZP

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should Article 7(2)(i)(iii) and Article 20(3) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, (1) as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 (2) (‘the Framework Decision’), be interpreted as authorising a court to refuse to enforce a decision of an authority of an issuing State other than a court if it finds that the service of that decision was effected in such a way as to infringe a party’s right to an effective defence before a court?

                  2.

                  In particular, can a finding that, despite the service procedures in force in the issuing State and the time limits laid down for appealing a decision as referred to in Article 1(a)(ii) and (iii) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA having been observed, the party residing in the State enforcing the decision did not have a real and effective opportunity to protect his rights at the pre-litigation stage of the proceedings due to not having been given sufficient time to respond to the notification of the imposition of the penalty in a proper manner constitute grounds for refusal?

                  3.

                  Under Article 3 of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, can the scope of legal protection afforded to persons against whom a financial penalty is to be recognised depend on whether the procedure for imposing the penalty was an administrative procedure, a procedure concerning a petty offence or a criminal procedure?

                  4.

                  In the light of the objectives and principles set out in Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, including Article 3 thereof, are the decisions of non-judicial authorities which are issued pursuant to the laws of the State issuing the decision concerned, under which the person in whose name a vehicle is registered is held liable for road traffic offences (that is to say, decisions issued solely on the basis of information obtained within the framework of the cross-border exchange of vehicle registration data and without any investigation being carried out in that case, including determining the actual offender), enforceable?

         (1)  OJ 2005 L 76, p. 16.

         (2)  Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24).


title: Case C-708/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 6 November 2018 — TK v Asociaţia de Proprietari bloc M5A Scara-A

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 6 November 2018 — TK v Asociaţia de Proprietari bloc M5A Scara-A
      (Case C-708/18)
      (2019/C 65/31)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul Bucureşti

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: TK

         Defendant: Asociaţia de Proprietari bloc M5A-Scara A

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Are Articles 8 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC, (1) on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data, to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law such as that at issue in the main proceedings, namely Article 5(2) of Law No 677/2001, and Article 6 of Decision No 52/2012 of the ANSPDCP (Autoritatea Națională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal, the National Authority for the Supervision of the Processing of Personal Data), in accordance with which video surveillance may be used to ensure the safety and protection of individuals, property and valuables and for the pursuit of legitimate interests, without the consent of the person concerned?

                  2.

                  Are Articles 8 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that the limitation of rights and freedoms which results from video surveillance is in accordance with the principle of proportionality, satisfies the requirement of being necessary and meets objectives of general interest or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, where the controller is able to take other measures to protect the legitimate interest in question?

                  3.

                  Is Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘legitimate interests’ of the controller must be proven, present and effective at the time of the data processing?

                  4.

                  Is Article 6(1)(e) of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data to be interpreted as meaning that data processing (video surveillance) is excessive or inappropriate where the controller is able to take other measures to protect the legitimate interest in question?

         (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).


title: Case C-731/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2018 by Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2018 in Case T-737/14 Vnesheconombank (VEB) v Council

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/25

      Appeal brought on 23 November 2018 by Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2018 in Case T-737/14 Vnesheconombank (VEB) v Council
      (Case C-731/18 P)
      (2019/C 65/33)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 in Case T-737/14;

                  —

                  give final judgment in the proceedings by granting the forms of order sought by the applicant, now the appellant, at first instance; that is to say, annul Article 1 of Decision 2014/512/CFSP (1) of 31 July 2014, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (2) of 31 July 2014, the new Article 1 in accordance with Decision 2014/659/CFSP (3) of 8 September 2014 and the new Article 5 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 (4) of 8 September 2014, in so far as they concern VEB and remove its name from the annexes in which it is included;

                  —

                  Order the Council to pay the costs of both actions.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appellant relies on four grounds in support of its appeal:

                  1.

                  Error in law in that the General Court erroneously ruled that the Council had met its duty to state reasons.

                  2.

                  Error in law in that the General Court erroneously ruled that there was no manifest error in the assessment of the facts on which the relevant provisions of the contested measures are based; this also amounts to a misuse of powers.

                  3.

                  Error in law in that the General Court erroneously ruled that the right to an effective remedy had been respected.

                  4.

                  Error in law in that that the General Court erroneously ruled that VEB’s right to property had been respected; this also amounts to an infringement of the principle of equality.

         (1)  Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13)

         (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1)

         (3)  Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54)

         (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3)


title: Case C-753/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 30 November 2018 — Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (Stim), Svenska artisters och musikers intresseorganisation ek. för. (SAMI) v Fleetmanager Sweden AB, Nordisk Biluthyrning AB

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/26

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 30 November 2018 — Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (Stim), Svenska artisters och musikers intresseorganisation ek. för. (SAMI) v Fleetmanager Sweden AB, Nordisk Biluthyrning AB
      (Case C-753/18)
      (2019/C 65/34)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Högsta domstolen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (Stim), Svenska artisters och musikers intresseorganisation ek. för. (SAMI)

         Respondents: Fleetmanager Sweden AB, Nordisk Biluthyrning AB

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does the hiring out of cars which are equipped as standard with radio receivers mean that the person who hires the cars out is a user who makes a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 (1) and within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115? (2)

                  2.

                  What is the significance, if any, of the volume of the car hire activities and the duration of the hires?

         (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

         (2)  Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 28).


title: Case C-792/18 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2018 by Jean-François Jalkh against the judgment delivered on 17 October 2018 in Case T-26/17 Jalkh v Parliament

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/27

      Appeal brought on 17 December 2018 by Jean-François Jalkh against the judgment delivered on 17 October 2018 in Case T-26/17 Jalkh v Parliament
      (Case C-792/18 P)
      (2019/C 65/36)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Jean-François Jalkh (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

         Other party: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The appellant submits that the Court should:

                  —

                  Set aside the judgment given on 17 October 2018 by the Seventh Chamber of the General Court of the European Union (T-26/17);
                  Accordingly:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 22 November 2016 adopting Report No A8-0319/2016 on the request for waiver of the immunity and privileges of Jean-François Jalkh, Member of the European Parliament;

                  —

                  Make an appropriate order on the amount to be awarded to the appellant in respect of the costs of the proceedings;

                  —

                  Order the European Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The grounds of appeal allege a breach of EU law, error of law and error of characterisation of the legal nature of the facts, as well as manifest error of assessment.
      1.   The preliminary observations in the judgment
      Contrary to the General Court’s assertion set out in paragraph 21 of the judgment under appeal, the absence of any waiver of parliamentary immunity does not deprive a party of the possibility of seeking, in France, compensation for the harm suffered solely at civil level, on the ground of fault (Article 1240 of the Civil Code) against a Member of Parliament.
      2.   The first plea in law analysed by the General Court
      The General Court’s analysis is based on confusion between two provisions. Point H is part of the reasoning in reference to Article 8 of Protocol No 7, on expressing opinions, whereas the General Court sets out its reasons on that subject in paragraphs 44 to 46, in reference to Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on immunity, which refers to the relevant national provisions.
      3.   The second and third pleas in law examined by the General Court
      It is on account of a manifest error of assessment that the General Court fails to give normative value to the European Parliament Directorate General for Research Working Paper on ‘Parliamentary Immunity in the Member States of the European Community and in the European Parliament, Legal Affairs Series, and fails to take into account the principles recalled therein, which leads to an erroneous assessment of Article 9 of Protocol No 7 in the light of the facts of the case.
      4.   The fourth plea in law examined by the General Court

                  —

                  Existing legal practice
                  Contrary to the General Court’s declaration, an established legal practice of the European Parliament ‘consisting in refusing requests for waiver of parliamentary immunity based on facts relating to the political activities of Members of Parliament’ did exist, which ought to have led the General Court to make a different finding on the waiver of parliamentary immunity.

                  —

                     Fumus persecutionis

                  There is no review on the part of the judicial authorities as to whether an association is partisan, which the General Court ought to have taken into account on a simple reading of the Law of 29 July 1881.
                  The General Court was able, by examining the statement of the Bureau National de Vigilance contre l’Antisemitisme (National Office for Vigilance against Anti-Semitism; BNVCA), to verify the partisan nature of that association, which seeks the dissolution of the Front National and therefore is indeed a political opponent of Jean-François Jalkh.
                  This is a clear case of fumus persecutionis.


title: Case C-793/18 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2018 by Jean-François Jalkh against the judgment delivered on 17 October 2018 in Case T-27/17 Jean-François Jalkh v Parliament

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/29

      Appeal brought on 17 December 2018 by Jean-François Jalkh against the judgment delivered on 17 October 2018 in Case T-27/17 Jean-François Jalkh v Parliament
      (Case C-793/18 P)
      (2019/C 65/37)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Jean-François Jalkh (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

         Other party: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The appellant submits that the Court should:

                  —

                  Set aside the judgment given on 17 October 2018 by the Seventh Chamber of the General Court of the European Union (T-27/17);
                  Accordingly:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 22 November 2016 adopting Report No A8-0319/2016 on the request for waiver of the immunity and privileges of Jean-François Jalkh, Member of the European Parliament;

                  —

                  Make an appropriate order on the amount to be awarded to the appellant in respect of the costs of the proceedings;

                  —

                  Order the European Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The grounds of appeal allege a breach of EU law, error of law and error of characterisation of the legal nature of the facts, as well as manifest error of assessment.
      1.   The preliminary observations in the judgment
      Contrary to the General Court’s assertion set out in paragraph 21 of the judgment under appeal, the absence of any waiver of parliamentary immunity does not deprive a party of the possibility of seeking, in France, compensation for the harm suffered solely at civil level, on the ground of fault (Article 1240 of the Civil Code) against a Member of Parliament.
      2.   The first plea in law analysed by the General Court
      The General Court’s analysis is based on confusion between two provisions. Point H is part of the reasoning in reference to Article 8 of Protocol No 7, on expressing opinions, whereas the General Court sets out its reasons on that subject in paragraphs 44 to 46, in reference to Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on immunity, which refers to the relevant national provisions.
      3.   The second and third pleas in law examined by the General Court
      It is on account of a manifest error of assessment that the General Court fails to give normative value to the European Parliament Directorate General for Research Working Paper on ‘Parliamentary Immunity in the Member States of the European Community and in the European Parliament, Legal Affairs Series, and fails to take into account the principles recalled therein, which leads to an erroneous assessment of Article 9 of Protocol No 7 in the light of the facts of the case.
      4.   The fourth plea in law examined by the General Court

                  —

                  Existing legal practice
                  Contrary to the General Court’s declaration, an established legal practice of the European Parliament ‘consisting in refusing requests for waiver of parliamentary immunity based on facts relating to the political activities of Members of Parliament’ did exist, which ought to have led the General Court to make a different finding on the waiver of parliamentary immunity.

                  —

                     Fumus persecutionis

                  There is no review on the part of the judicial authorities as to whether an association is partisan, which the General Court ought to have taken into account on a simple reading of the Law of 29 July 1881.
                  The General Court was able, by examining the terms of the invitation to the conference organised by the Fédération des Maisons des Potes, to verify the partisan nature of that association, which is a political opponent of the Front National and Jean-François Jalkh.
                  This is a clear case of fumus persecutionis.


title: Case T-834/16: Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — QC v European Council (Action for annulment — EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016 — Press release — Notion of ‘international agreement’ — Identification of the author of the act — Scope of the act — Meeting of the European Council — Meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union held on the premises of the Council of the European Union — Capacity of the representatives of the Member States of the European Union during a meeting with the representative of a third country — First paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/34

      Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — QC v European Council
      (Case T-834/16) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016 - Press release - Notion of ‘international agreement’ - Identification of the author of the act - Scope of the act - Meeting of the European Council - Meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union held on the premises of the Council of the European Union - Capacity of the representatives of the Member States of the European Union during a meeting with the representative of a third country - First paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Lack of jurisdiction))
      (2019/C 65/42)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: QC (represented by: C. Ladis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Council (represented by: S. Boelaert, M.-M. Joséphidès and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of an alleged agreement concluded between the European Council and the Republic of Turkey dated 18 March 2016 and entitled ‘EU-Turkey Statement, 18 March 2016’ and, secondly, application based on Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the European Council unlawfully failed to take measures.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  QC and the European Council shall bear their own respective costs.

         (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Case T-891/16: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission (Action for failure to act — State aid — Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link — Individual aid — Adoption of a position by the Commission — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/35

      Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission
      (Case T-891/16) (1)

      ((Action for failure to act - State aid - Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link - Individual aid - Adoption of a position by the Commission - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 65/44)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark) and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and by S. Noë, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by: C. Thorning, and subsequently by J. Nymann-Lindegren, acting as Agents, and by R. Holdgaard, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission acted unlawfully by failing to define its position on aid measures concerning the financing, planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

                  2.

                  Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  The Kingdom of Denmark is to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case T-447/17: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Bowles v ECB (Civil Service — ECB Staff — Appointment decision concerning the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board — No act adversely affecting the applicant — No interest in bringing proceedings — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/36

      Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Bowles v ECB
      (Case T-447/17) (1)

      ((Civil Service - ECB Staff - Appointment decision concerning the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board - No act adversely affecting the applicant - No interest in bringing proceedings - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
      (2019/C 65/45)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Carlos Bowles (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: B. Ehlers and F. Malfrère, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, the annulment (i) of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB of 31 January 2017 to appoint M.S. to the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board (ii) of the decision not to appoint the applicant to that post and (iii) of the decision not to allow the applicant to apply for that post and, secondly, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

                  2.

                  Mr Carlos Bowles shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-565/17: Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group (Cheapflights) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Cheapflights — Referral of the trade mark application to the examiner for examination of the absolute grounds for refusal — Challenge by the proprietor of the earlier mark — Grounds of the contested decision containing an assessment of the validity of the earlier mark — Challenge by the proprietor of the earlier mark — Partial inadmissibility — Incidental submissions made on the basis on Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 — Withdrawal of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — No need to adjudicate in part)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/36

      Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group (Cheapflights)
      (Case T-565/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Cheapflights - Referral of the trade mark application to the examiner for examination of the absolute grounds for refusal - Challenge by the proprietor of the earlier mark - Grounds of the contested decision containing an assessment of the validity of the earlier mark - Challenge by the proprietor of the earlier mark - Partial inadmissibility - Incidental submissions made on the basis on Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Withdrawal of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - No need to adjudicate in part))
      (2019/C 65/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: CheapFlights International Ltd (Speenoge, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Momondo Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2017 (R 1893/2011-G) relating to opposition proceedings between CheapFlights International and Momondo Group.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the closure of the appeal proceedings by the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 June 2017 (Case R 1893/2011-G) with regard to the goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 and 42 in respect of which the Opposition Division had rejected the opposition of CheapFlights International Ltd.

                  2.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible as to the remainder.

                  3.

                  CheapFlights International shall pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by EUIPO.

                  4.

                  EUIPO shall bear half of its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-739/17: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Euracoal and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Directive 2010/75/EU — Best available techniques conclusions — Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/37

      Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Euracoal and Others v Commission
      (Case T-739/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Environment - Directive 2010/75/EU - Best available techniques conclusions - Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 65/47)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: Association européenne du charbon et du lignite (Euracoal) (Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Belgium), Deutscher Braunkohlen-Industrie-Verein eV (Cologne, Germany), Lausitz Energie Kraftwerke AG (Cottbus, Germany), Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH (Zeitz, Germany), eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG (Chemnitz, Germany) (represented by: W. Spieth and N. Hellermann, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Becker and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 of 31 July 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for large combustion plants (OJ 2017 L 212, p. 1).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

                  2.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Polska Grupa Energetyczna S.A. (PGE), the French Republic, Elektrárny Opatovice, a.s., and Saale Energie GmbH, Sev.en EC, a.s., Freistaat Sachsen, Elektrárna Počerady, a.s., the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Client Earth.

                  3.

                  The Association européenne du charbon et du lignite (Euracoal), Deutscher Braunkohlen-Industrie-Verein eV, Lausitz Energie Kraftwerke AG, Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH and eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

                  4.

                  Euracoal, Deutscher Braunkohlen-Industrie-Verein, Lausitz Energie Kraftwerke, Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft, eins energie in sachsen, the Commission, PGE, the French Republic, Elektrárny Opatovice and Saale Energie, Sev.en EC, Freistaat Sachsen, Elektrárna Počerady, the EEB and Client Earth shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.


title: Case T-5/18: Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg BEER COMPANY) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Hamburg BEER COMPANY — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/38

      Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg BEER COMPANY)
      (Case T-5/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Hamburg BEER COMPANY - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
      (2019/C 65/48)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Hamburg Beer Company GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2017 (Case R 436/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Hamburg BEER COMPANY as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

                  2.

                  Hamburg Beer Company GmbH shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.


title: Case T-6/18: Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg Beer Company) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Hamburg Beer Company — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/39

      Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg Beer Company)
      (Case T-6/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Hamburg Beer Company - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
      (2019/C 65/49)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Hamburg Beer Company GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2017 (Case R 437/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Hamburg Beer Company as an EU trade mark

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

                  2.

                  Hamburg Beer Company GmbH shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.


title: Case T-70/18: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Sonova Holding v EUIPO (HEAR THE WORLD) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark HEAR THE WORLD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/39

      Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Sonova Holding v EUIPO (HEAR THE WORLD)
      (Case T-70/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark HEAR THE WORLD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 65/50)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Sonova Holding AG (Stäfa, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Pansch and A. Sabellek, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2017 (Case R 1645/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign HEAR THE WORLD as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Sonova Holding AG shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case T-720/18: Action brought on 10 December 2018 — AMVAC Netherlands v EFSA

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/40

      Action brought on 10 December 2018 — AMVAC Netherlands v EFSA
      (Case T-720/18)
      (2019/C 65/52)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the EFSA decision of 1 October 2018, notified to the applicant on 2 October 2018, on the assessment of the confidentiality claims made in relation to the application for renewal of the approval process for Ethoprophos as an active substance;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging ultra vires

                              —

                              The applicant submits that the documents to be published as a result of the contested decision should be published in sanitised form only because the defendant has undertaken an activity (proposal of a classification of substance) which is expressly outside its remit of powers.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging the breach of fundamental principles of EU law

                              —

                              The applicant submits that the contested decision results from a procedure during which its rights of defence have not been respected.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009 (1)

                              —

                              The applicant submits that part of the documents to be published as a result of the contested decision contains information that results from a flawed and partial assessment, and their publication would undermine the commercial interests of the applicant.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1)


title: Case C-108/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București, Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/10

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București, Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți
      (Case C-108/19)
      (2019/C 172/13)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel București

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k.

         Respondents: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București, Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți

         Question referred

      In the context of the sale of goods through an online retail outlet, is Article 33 of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as not applying in the situation where the customer directly enters into a contract with the carrier for the transport of the goods from the Member State of the supplier to his own Member State, in accordance with the dispatching options offered by the supplier, and the goods are not transported on behalf of the supplier?

         (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).