title: Case T-322/19: Action brought on 27 May 2019 — El-Qaddafi v Council

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/38

      Action brought on 27 May 2019 — El-Qaddafi v Council
      (Case T-322/19)
      (2019/C 246/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Aisha Muammer Mohamed El-Qaddafi (Muscat, Oman) (represented by: S. Bafadhel, Barrister)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Decision 2017/497/CFSP of 21 March 2017 amending Decision 2015/1333 CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annexes I and III to Council Decision 2015/1333/CFSP of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya;

                  —

                  annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2017/489 of 21 March 2019 implementing Article 21(5) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya; and

                  —

                  order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred in relation to the proceedings before the General Court in accordance with the Rules of the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union failed to act in a timely manner concerning the notification of the contested measures in relation to the applicant. This amounted to a violation of an essential procedural requirement related to the right to effective judicial protection which occasioned prejudice to the applicant.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to relist the applicant is based on identical reasons as concern restrictive measures previously annulled by judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2017 in Case T-681/14, in breach of the principles of res judicata and legal certainty and of the right to an effective remedy.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contested acts fail to disclose a lawful basis for maintaining the applicant’s listing, notwithstanding the fundamental change in circumstances in Libya. The Council has failed to provide individual, specific and concrete reasons for the contested measures which are not well-founded in any supporting material.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicant’s fundamental rights including the right to health, the right to family life, the right to property, and the right to effective defence as safeguarded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case T-325/19: Action brought on 28 May 2019 — Cipriani v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (ARRIGO CIPRIANI)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/39

      Action brought on 28 May 2019 — Cipriani v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (ARRIGO CIPRIANI)
      (Case T-325/19)
      (2019/C 246/41)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Arrigo Cipriani (Venice, Italy) (represented by: S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hotel Cipriani Srl (Venice, Italy)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ARRIGO CIPRIANI — Application for registration No 14 063 838

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2019 in Case R 406/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  reject the opposition filed by Hotel Cipriani s.r.l., or refer the case back to EUIPO in order that it may give a decision in accordance with the judgment;

                  —

                  order full reimbursement of the costs of the present proceedings, including those of the previous procedural stages before EUIPO, in favour of Arrigo Cipriani.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.


title: Case T-328/19: Action brought on 29 May 2019 — ‘Scorify’ v EUIPO — Scor (SCORIFY)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/40

      Action brought on 29 May 2019 — ‘Scorify’ v EUIPO — Scor (SCORIFY)
      (Case T-328/19)
      (2019/C 246/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant:‘Scorify’ UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: V. Viešūnaitė, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scor SE (Paris, France)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark in colours red, white and dark blue SCORIFY — Application for registration No 16 214 521

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2019 in Case R 1639/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  carefully consider the applicant’s original pleadings and its grounds of action, and alter the Decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, stating that the applicant’s appeal submitted to the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office was justified, thus, the opposition had to be rejected;

                  —

                  order the other party to bear all the costs paid and incurred by the applicant within the meaning of Articles 134, 139, 140, 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-329/19: Action brought on 31 May 2019 — 12seasons v EUIPO — Société Immobilière et Mobilière de Montagny (BE EDGY BERLIN)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/41

      Action brought on 31 May 2019 — 12seasons v EUIPO — Société Immobilière et Mobilière de Montagny (BE EDGY BERLIN)
      (Case T-329/19)
      (2019/C 246/43)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: 12seasons GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société Immobilière et Mobilière de Montagny (Roanne, France)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark BE EDGY BERLIN — EU trade mark No 15 981 921

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 in Case R 1522/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-331/19: Action brought on 3 June 2019 — Pierre Balmain v EUIPO (Representation of a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/42

      Action brought on 3 June 2019 — Pierre Balmain v EUIPO (Representation of a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain)
      (Case T-331/19)
      (2019/C 246/44)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Pierre Balmain SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain) — Application for registration No 17 515 099

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2019 in Case R 1223/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  allow the registration of EU trade mark No 17 515 099 for the rejected goods in Classes 14 and 26;

                  —

                  order any party who opposes this action to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-332/19: Action brought on 3 June 2019 — Pierre Balmain v EUIPO (Representation of a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/43

      Action brought on 3 June 2019 — Pierre Balmain v EUIPO (Representation of a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain)
      (Case T-332/19)
      (2019/C 246/45)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Pierre Balmain SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain) — Application for registration No 17 515 115

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2019 in Case R 1224/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  allow the registration of EU trade mark No 17 515 115 for the rejected goods in Classes 14 and 26;

                  —

                  order any party who opposes this action to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-333/19: Action brought on 30 May 2019 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/44

      Action brought on 30 May 2019 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES)
      (Case T-333/19)
      (2019/C 246/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Christos Ntolas (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: C. Renger, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: General Nutrition Investment Co. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES — Application for registration No 13 116 678

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 March 2019 in Case R 1343/2017-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  reject the opposition;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-729/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Article 49 TFEU — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 15(2) and (3) — Directive 2005/36/EC — Articles 13, 14, 50 and Annex VII — Freedom of establishment — Recognition of professional qualifications — National provisions concerning suppliers of training of mediators)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/5

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
      (Case C-729/17) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Article 49 TFEU - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 15(2) and (3) - Directive 2005/36/EC - Articles 13, 14, 50 and Annex VII - Freedom of establishment - Recognition of professional qualifications - National provisions concerning suppliers of training of mediators)
      (2019/C 280/05)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Tassopoulou, D. Tsagkaraki and Ch. Machairas, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that:-

                              —

                              by restricting the legal form of mediation training service providers to non-profit companies, which have to be set up jointly by at least one association of lawyers and at least one Professional Chamber in Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2)(b) and (c) and Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market; and

                              —

                              by subjecting the procedure for the recognition of academic qualifications to the imposition of additional requirements related to the content of certificates required and to compensatory measures without a prior assessment of substantial differences from national training, and by maintaining in force discriminatory provisions which require applicants for accreditation as mediators who have accreditation that was obtained outside Greece or from a recognised provider of training outside Greece following training provided in Greece, to prove experience of having taken part in at least three mediation procedures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13, 14 and 50(1) of, and Annex VII to, Directive 2005/36/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005, on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 November 2013;

                  2.

                  Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.


title: Case C-159/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the juge de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — André Moens v Ryanair Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Scope — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Presence of petrol on an airport runway)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/6

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the juge de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — André Moens v Ryanair Ltd
      (Case C-159/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Scope - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Presence of petrol on an airport runway)
      (2019/C 280/06)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Juge de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: André Moens

         Defendant: Ryanair Ltd

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read in the light of recitals 14 and 25 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the presence of petrol on a runway of an airport which led to its closure and, consequently, the long delay of a flight to or from that airport, falls within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, when the petrol in question does not originate from an aircraft of the carrier that operated that flight.

                  2.

                  Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recitals 14 and 15 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the presence of petrol on a runway of an airport which has led to the closure of that runway, the nature of which is established as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, must be regarded as a circumstance which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken within the meaning of that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.


title: Case C-247/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 — Italian Republic v European Commission (Appeal — European Social Fund (ESF) — Operational programme for objective No 1 for the Region of Sicily (2000-2006) — Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted — Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Article 39 — Supervisory powers — Necessary verifications — Financial corrections — Calculation — Method by extrapolation)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/7

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 — Italian Republic v European Commission
      (Case C-247/18) (1)

      (Appeal - European Social Fund (ESF) - Operational programme for objective No 1 for the Region of Sicily (2000-2006) - Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Article 39 - Supervisory powers - Necessary verifications - Financial corrections - Calculation - Method by extrapolation)
      (2019/C 280/07)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

         Other Party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

         Operative part

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders the Italian Republic to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.


title: Case C-348/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) (Preliminary reference — Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector — Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Second subparagraph of Article 2(1) — Establishment of the producers' contribution to the payment of the additional levy due — Reallocation of unused reference quantities — National measure reallocating unused quantities on the basis of objective priority criteria)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/7

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)
      (Case C-348/18) (1)

      (Preliminary reference - Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector - Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 - Second subparagraph of Article 2(1) - Establishment of the producers' contribution to the payment of the additional levy due - Reallocation of unused reference quantities - National measure reallocating unused quantities on the basis of objective priority criteria)
      (2019/C 280/08)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice

         Defendant: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

         In the presence of: Comitato Spontaneo Produttori Latte (COSPLAT), Società Agricola Galleana — Società semplice, VS and Others

         Operative part of the judgment

      The second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999 of 17 May 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State decides to reallocate unused reference quantities, that reallocation must be made between producers who have exceeded their reference quantities, in proportion to the reference quantities at their disposal.

         (1)  OJ C 394, 20.8.2018.


title: Case C-407/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Slovenia) — Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for the enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the request for enforcement — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Proper interpretation)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/8

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Slovenia) — Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
      (Case C-407/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Proceedings for the enforcement of a mortgage claim - Directly enforceable notarial instrument - Judicial review of unfair terms - Suspension of enforcement - Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the request for enforcement - Consumer protection - Principle of effectiveness - Proper interpretation)
      (2019/C 280/09)
      Language of the case: Slovenian

         Referring court

      Višje sodišče v Mariboru

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar

         Defendants: Addiko Bank d.d.

         Operative part of the judgment

      Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted, in the light of the principle of effectiveness, as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the national court hearing an application for the enforcement of a mortgage loan agreement, concluded between a trader and a consumer in the form of a directly enforceable notarial deed, does not have the possibility, either at the request of the consumer or ex officio, of examining whether the terms contained in such a deed are unfair within the meaning of that Directive and, on that basis, of suspending the requested enforcement.

         (1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.


title: Case C-518/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích — Czech Republic) — RD v SC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Certification of a judicial decision as a European Enforcement Order — Minimum standards applicable to uncontested claims procedures — Defendant without a known address who did not appear at the hearing)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/9

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích — Czech Republic) — RD v SC
      (Case C-518/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Certification of a judicial decision as a European Enforcement Order - Minimum standards applicable to uncontested claims procedures - Defendant without a known address who did not appear at the hearing)
      (2019/C 280/10)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Referring court

      Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: RD

         Defendant: SC

         Operative part of the judgment

      Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that, where a court is unable to obtain the defendant’s address, it does not allow a judicial decision relating to a debt, made following a hearing attended by neither the defendant nor the guardian ad litem appointed for the purpose of the proceedings, to be certified as a European Enforcement Order.

         (1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.


title: Case C-131/18: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Law on undertakings — Combating late payment in commercial transactions — Directive 2011/7/EU — Article 6 — Compensation for recovery costs — Payment of a fixed sum and of reasonable compensation — Deduction of fixed sum from the costs of instructing a lawyer prior to bringing proceedings before a court)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/10

      Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler
      (Case C-131/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Law on undertakings - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Directive 2011/7/EU - Article 6 - Compensation for recovery costs - Payment of a fixed sum and of reasonable compensation - Deduction of fixed sum from the costs of instructing a lawyer prior to bringing proceedings before a court)
      (2019/C 280/12)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Vanessa Gambietz

         Defendant: Erika Ziegler

         Operative part of the order

      Article 6(3) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted to mean that the fixed sum of EUR 40, to which the creditor is entitled pursuant to Article 6(1) of that directive, must be deducted from the reasonable compensation provided for in Article 6(3) thereof.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Case C-293/18: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Sindicato Nacional de CCOO de Galicia v Unión General de Trabajadores de Galicia (UGT), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Confederación Intersindical Galega (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 2 and 3 — Definition of ‘fixed-term worker’ — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Comparability of situations — Justification — Compensation in the event of the termination of a permanent employment contract on an objective ground — No compensation on expiry of a fixed-term pre-doctoral employment contract)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/11

      Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Sindicato Nacional de CCOO de Galicia v Unión General de Trabajadores de Galicia (UGT), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Confederación Intersindical Galega
      (Case C-293/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 2 and 3 - Definition of ‘fixed-term worker’ - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Comparability of situations - Justification - Compensation in the event of the termination of a permanent employment contract on an objective ground - No compensation on expiry of a fixed-term pre-doctoral employment contract)
      (2019/C 280/13)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Sindicato Nacional de CCOO de Galicia

         Defendant: Unión General de Trabajadores de Galicia (UGT), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Confederación Intersindical Gallega

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, in particular Clause 2(1) and Clause 3(1), must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to workers such as the personnel employed under the pre-doctoral contracts at issue in the main proceedings.

                  2.

                  Clause 4(1) of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not provide for any compensation to be paid to workers employed under pre-doctoral contracts, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, upon expiry of those contracts, even where compensation is payable to permanent workers when their employment contract is terminated on objective grounds.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: C-646/18: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Gerona — Spain) — OD v Ryanair (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Determination of the court having jurisdiction to hear an application for compensation in respect of a delayed flight — Article 26 — Implied prorogation — Requirement that the defendant enter an appearance)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/12

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Gerona — Spain) — OD v Ryanair
      (C-646/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Determination of the court having jurisdiction to hear an application for compensation in respect of a delayed flight - Article 26 - Implied prorogation - Requirement that the defendant enter an appearance)
      (2019/C 280/14)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Gerona

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: OD

         Defendant: Ryanair D.A.C.

         Operative part of the order

      Article 26(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in a case, such as that in the main proceedings, where the defendant has not submitted observations and has not appeared.

         (1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.


title: Case C-222/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 8 March 2019 — BW Sp. z o.o., having its seat in B. v D.R.

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/17

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 8 March 2019 — BW Sp. z o.o., having its seat in B. v D.R.
      (Case C-222/19)
      (2019/C 280/23)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: BW Sp. z o.o., having its seat in B.

         Defendant: D.R.

         Question referred

      Must the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Article 3(1) of that directive, and the principles of EU law concerning consumer protection and the balance between contracting parties be interpreted as precluding the introduction into national law of the concept of ‘maximum non-interest credit costs’ and the mathematical formula for calculating those costs set out in Article 5(6a), in conjunction with Article 36a, of the Ustawa o kredycie konsumenckim (Law on Consumer Credit) of 12 May 2011 (consolidated text: Dziennik Ustaw of 2018, item 993), which allow the costs of the business activity of a seller or supplier to be included in the costs related to a credit agreement that are to be borne by the consumer (the total cost of the credit)?

         (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case C-342/19 P: Appeal brought on 30 April 2019 by Fabio De Masi and Yanis Varoufakis against the judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-798/17, Fabio De Masi, Yanis Varoufakis v European Central Bank (ECB)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/20

      Appeal brought on 30 April 2019 by Fabio De Masi and Yanis Varoufakis against the judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-798/17, Fabio De Masi, Yanis Varoufakis v European Central Bank (ECB)
      (Case C-342/19 P)
      (2019/C 280/28)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellants: Fabio de Masi, Yanis Varoufakis (represented by: Professor Dr. A. Fischer-Lescano, University professor)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

         Form of order sought

      The appellants claim that the Court should:

                  1.

                  Set aside in its entirety the judgment in Case T-798/17 and uphold the application at first instance.

                  2.

                  Order the respondent to pay the costs of the dispute in accordance with Article 184 in conjunction with Article 137 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      At first instance, the appellants sought a declaration of invalidity under Article 263(4) TFEU of the decision of the ECB of 16 October 2017 by which access to the document of 23 April 2015 with the title ‘Answers to the question of the interpretation of Article 14.4 of the Protocol on the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB’ was refused to them.
      In support of the first head of claim, the appellants put forward four grounds:

                  1.

                  Failure to have regard for the primary law principle of transparency laid down in Article 15(1) TFEU, Article 10(3) TEU and Article 298(1) TFEU as well as of Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The judgment under appeal disregards the fact that the requirement for transparency derives not only from secondary law, but that that secondary law must be interpreted in accordance with the transparency requirement under primary law. As a result, the Court unlawfully withdraws judicial review of the transparency requirement.

                  2.

                  Failure to have regard for the importance of the obligation to state reasons and the corresponding standards developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The judgment of the Court fails to have regard for the fact that the contested decision of the ECB entirely fails to set out the specific prejudice to the ECB.

                  3.

                  Failure to have regard for the connection between Article 4(3) of Decision 2004/258/EC (1) (Transparency exceptions: opinions for internal use) and Article 4(2) of that decision (Transparency exceptions: legal communications). The Court fails to have regard for the lex specialis nature of Article 4(2) of the abovementioned decision in relation to legal opinions and the fact that Article 4(3) of that decision is not applicable to abstract legal advice.

                  4.

                  The judgment under appeal in general unlawfully denies an overriding public interest in the publication of the document for the purposes of Article 4(3) of the abovementioned decision.
                  The application for costs is made in accordance with Article 184 in conjunction with Article 137 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

         (1)  Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42).


title: Case C-356/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Delfly sp. z o.o. v Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/22

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Delfly sp. z o.o. v Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.
      (Case C-356/19)
      (2019/C 280/29)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Delfly sp. z o.o.

         Defendant: Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) be interpreted as governing not only the scope of the obligation to pay compensation but also the manner in which that obligation is to be discharged?

                  2.

                  If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can a passenger or his legal successor effectively demand the payment of the equivalent of EUR 400 in another currency, including, in particular, the national currency of the place of residence of the passenger whose flight was cancelled or delayed?

                  3.

                  If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, what criteria should be used to determine the currency in which the passenger or his legal successor may demand payment, and what exchange rate should be applied?

                  4.

                  Do Article 7(1) or other provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 preclude the application of provisions of national law concerning the performance of obligations which result in the dismissal of an action brought by a passenger or his legal successor on the sole ground that the claim incorrectly indicated the national currency of the passenger’s place of residence rather than the Euro in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Regulation?

         (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-244/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Synergy Hellas v Commission (Research and technological development — Financial regulation — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — J-Web grant agreement — Enforceable decision ordering recovery — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Synergy Hellas v Commission
      (Case T-244/18) (1)

      (Research and technological development - Financial regulation - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - J-Web grant agreement - Enforceable decision ordering recovery - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2019/C 280/55)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Damis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A Katsimerou and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 1115 final of 19 February 2018 on the recovery of the sum of EUR 76 282,08, together with interest, from the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis to pay the costs, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


title: Case T-299/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament (Public works contracts — Tendering procedure — General contractor works in the European Parliament buildings in Brussels — Rejection of the bid of one tenderer and award of the contract to other tenderers — Abnormally low tender — Action for annulment — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament
      (Case T-299/18) (1)

      (Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - General contractor works in the European Parliament buildings in Brussels - Rejection of the bid of one tenderer and award of the contract to other tenderers - Abnormally low tender - Action for annulment - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
      (2019/C 280/56)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented initially by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, and subsequently by M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Thomas, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller, Z. Nagy and D. Simon, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the Parliament decision of 19 April 2018 to maintain in force its decision of 24 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender and awarding to five tenderers a framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels (call for tenders 06D 20/2017/M036) and, secondly, of the addendum to the Parliament’s tender assessment report of 26 March 2018.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Strabag Belgium to pay the costs, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: Case T-652/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Porus v EUIPO (oral Dialysis) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark oral Dialysis — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Porus v EUIPO (oral Dialysis)
      (Case T-652/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark oral Dialysis - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 280/57)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Porus GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Schneider and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2018 (Case R 1375/2018-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign oral Dialysis as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Porus GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.


title: Case T-306/19: Action brought on 17 May 2019 — Graanhandel P. van Schelven v Commission

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/42

      Action brought on 17 May 2019 — Graanhandel P. van Schelven v Commission
      (Case T-306/19)
      (2019/C 280/58)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Graanhandel P. van Schelven BV (Nieuwe Tonge, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Almeida, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Article 1(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/446; (1)

                  —

                  order the defendant to produce all relevant documents leading to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2019/446.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s revocation of ‘Control Union Certifications’ (CUC) as an EU organic certifier appears arbitrary as it is based on false facts.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s subjective right to be protected from the arbitrary revoking of Commission appointments of organic certifiers to run EU organic controls in third countries was violated. Its interest as a competitor in the organic market was not protected.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that, with the revocation of CUC’s appointment as an EU organic certifier, the supply of organic products in decade-long trade relations are blocked and the applicant’s rights as importer have been directly affected. Such direct concern is established by the contested regulation as the applicant was the recipient, as importer, of certificates of inspection issued by CUC which enabled it to access the EU organic food and feed market. CUC is the organic certifier for the farms in the Black Sea region from which the applicant’s main supplier sources the organic products.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s right to be subject only to proportionate interference with its business as well as the basic fundamental guarantee of its property and its freedom to engage in commerce.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, referring to the applicant’s second head of claim, which seeks access to Commission documents, alleging that the applicant enjoys the general access rights granted under EU law and based on the guarantee of due process and the right to be heard as protected by relevant human rights instruments.

         (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/446 of 19 March 2019 amending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries (OJ 2019 L 77, p. 67).


title: Case T-393/19: Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Catasta v Parliament

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/43

      Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Catasta v Parliament
      (Case T-393/19)
      (2019/C 280/59)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Anna Catasta (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.


title: Case T-394/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Zecchino v Parliament

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/43

      Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Zecchino v Parliament
      (Case T-394/19)
      (2019/C 280/60)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Ortensio Zecchino (Ariano Irpino, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.


title: Case T-395/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Tognoli v Parliament

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/44

      Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Tognoli v Parliament
      (Case T-395/19)
      (2019/C 280/61)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Carlo Tognoli (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.


title: Case T-396/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Allione v Parliament

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/45

      Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Allione v Parliament
      (Case T-396/19)
      (2019/C 280/62)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Emma Allione (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.


title: Case T-397/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Novati v Parliament

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/45

      Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Novati v Parliament
      (Case T-397/19)
      (2019/C 280/63)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Vanda Novati (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.


title: Case T-398/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Paciotti v Parliament

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/46

      Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Paciotti v Parliament
      (Case T-398/19)
      (2019/C 280/64)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Elena Ornella Paciotti (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.


title: Case T-403/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Fantuzzi v Parliament

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/47

      Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Fantuzzi v Parliament
      (Case T-403/19)
      (2019/C 280/65)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Giulio Fantuzzi (Correggio, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.


title: Case T-404/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Lavarra v Parliament

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/47

      Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Lavarra v Parliament
      (Case T-404/19)
      (2019/C 280/66)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Vincenzo Lavarra (Bari, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.


title: Case T-405/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Malerba v Parliament

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/48

      Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Malerba v Parliament
      (Case T-405/19)
      (2019/C 280/67)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Franco Malerba (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Florio, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.


title: Case C-422/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2019 — Johannes Dietrich v Hessischer Rundfunk

text:
               26.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/28

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2019 — Johannes Dietrich v Hessischer Rundfunk
      (Case C-422/19)
      (2019/C 288/34)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant, appellant and appellant on a point of law: Johannes Dietrich

         Defendant, respondent and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Hessischer Rundfunk

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does the exclusive competence that the European Union, pursuant to Article 2(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 3(1)(c) TFEU, enjoys in the area of monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro preclude a legal act of one of those Member States that provides for an obligation on the part of public authorities of the Member State to accept euro banknotes in the fulfilment of statutorily imposed payment obligations?

                  2.

                  Does the status as legal tender of banknotes denominated in euro, as established in the third sentence of Article 128(1) TFEU, the third sentence of Article 16(1) of Protocol (No 4) on the statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank and the second sentence of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (1) contain a prohibition precluding public authorities of a Member State from refusing fulfilment of a statutorily imposed payment obligation in such banknotes, or does EU law leave room for provisions that exclude payment in euro banknotes for certain statutorily imposed payment obligations?

                  3.

                  If the first question is answered in the affirmative and the second question is answered in the negative:
                  Can a legal act of a Member State whose currency is the euro which is adopted in the context of the European Union’s exclusive competence in the area of monetary policy be applied to the extent to which, and for so long as, the European Union has not made use of its competence?

         (1)  OJ 1998 L 139, p. 1.


title: Case C-423/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2019 — Norbert Häring v Hessischer Rundfunk

text:
               26.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/28

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2019 — Norbert Häring v Hessischer Rundfunk
      (Case C-423/19)
      (2019/C 288/35)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant, appellant and appellant on a point of law: Norbert Häring

         Defendant, respondent and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Hessischer Rundfunk

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does the exclusive competence that the European Union, pursuant to Article 2(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 3(1)(c) TFEU, enjoys in the area of monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro preclude a legal act of one of those Member States that provides for an obligation on the part of public authorities of the Member State to accept euro banknotes in the fulfilment of statutorily imposed payment obligations?

                  2.

                  Does the status as legal tender of banknotes denominated in euro, as established in the third sentence of Article 128(1) TFEU, the third sentence of Article 16(1) of Protocol (No 4) on the statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank and the second sentence of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (1) contain a prohibition precluding public authorities of a Member State from refusing fulfilment of a statutorily imposed payment obligation in such banknotes, or does EU law leave room for provisions that exclude payment in euro banknotes for certain statutorily imposed payment obligations?

                  3.

                  If the first question is answered in the affirmative and the second question is answered in the negative:
                  Can a legal act of a Member State whose currency is the euro which is adopted in the context of the European Union’s exclusive competence in the area of monetary policy be applied to the extent to which, and for so long as, the European Union has not made use of its competence?

         (1)  OJ 1998 L 139, p. 1.


title: Case C-427/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 June 2019 — Joint-stock insurance company ‘Bulstrad Vienna Insurance Group’ AD v Insurance company ‘Olympic’

text:
               26.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/30

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 June 2019 — Joint-stock insurance company ‘Bulstrad Vienna Insurance Group’ AD v Insurance company ‘Olympic’
      (Case C-427/19)
      (2019/C 288/37)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Sofiyski rayonen sad

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Joint-stock insurance company ‘Bulstrad Vienna Insurance Group’ AD

         Defendant: Insurance company ‘Olympic’

         Question referred

                  1.

                  When interpreting Article 630 of the Kodeks za zastrahovaneto (Insurance Code) in the light of Article 274 of Directive 2009/138/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), is it to be assumed that the decision of an authority of a Member State to withdraw authorisation from an insurer and appoint a provisional liquidator for it without court-ordered winding-up proceedings having been opened constitutes a ‘decision to open winding-up proceedings’?

                  2.

                  If the law of the Member State in which an insurer from which the licence has been withdrawn has its head office, and in respect of which a provisional liquidator has been appointed, provides that, in the event that a provisional liquidator has been appointed, all court proceedings against that company must be stayed, must that legislation be applied by the courts of the other Member States, even if this is not expressly provided for in their national law, pursuant to Article 274 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II)?

         (1)  OJ 2009, L 335 p. 1.


title: Case C-429/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 5 June 2019 — Remondis GmbH v Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel

text:
               26.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/31

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 5 June 2019 — Remondis GmbH v Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel
      (Case C-429/19)
      (2019/C 288/38)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberlandesgericht Koblenz

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant and appellant: Remondis GmbH

         Defendant and respondent: Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel

         Other party: Landkreis Neuwied

         Question referred

      Is Article 12(4)(a) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that cooperation does indeed exist if a contracting authority responsible for waste disposal within its territory performs a disposal task — which is incumbent on it under national law and for the performance of which several operations are required — not entirely by itself, but rather commissions another contracting authority that is independent of it and is likewise responsible for waste disposal within its territory to carry out one of the necessary operations in return for consideration?

         (1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.


title: Case C-430/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 3 June 2019 — SC C. F. SRL v A. J. F. P. M., D. G. R. F. P. C.

text:
               26.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/31

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 3 June 2019 — SC C. F. SRL v A. J. F. P. M., D. G. R. F. P. C.
      (Case C-430/19)
      (2019/C 288/39)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul Cluj

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: SC C. F. SRL

         Defendants: A. J. F. P. M., D. G. R. F. P. C.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  In light of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence, as outlined to date in the case-law of the Court of Justice (Solvay, Sopropé ‒ Organizações de Calçado Lda and Ispas), may or must an administrative fiscal document issued to an individual be declared null and void if that individual has not been allowed access to the information on the basis of which that document was issued, notwithstanding the fact that reference is made in that document to certain information on the administrative file?

                  2.

                  Do the principles of neutrality, proportionality and equivalence preclude the exercise of the right to deduct VAT and corporation tax in the case of a company the conduct of which with regard to fiscal matters is beyond reproach and which has been denied the right to deduct corporation tax on account of the fiscal conduct of its suppliers, which is alleged to be improper on the basis of factors such as a lack of human resources or a lack of means of transport, in the case where, in addition, the tax authority has adduced no evidence of any activity that suggests fiscal and/or criminal liability on the part of those suppliers?

                  3.

                  Is a national practice inconsistent with EU law if, pursuant to that practice, the right to deduct VAT and corporation tax is subject to the possession of other supporting documents in addition to the tax invoice, such as estimates of expenditure or reports on the progress of works, even though such additional supporting documents have not been clearly and precisely defined in the national tax legislation?

                  4.

                  In light of the judgment in WebMindLicenses, can the situation in which a taxable person purchases goods and services from a taxable person which benefits from a different tax regime from that of the taxable person in question constitute tax evasion?


title: Case C-473/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 18 June 2019 — Föreningen Skydda Skogen

text:
               26.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/32

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 18 June 2019 — Föreningen Skydda Skogen
      (Case C-473/19)
      (2019/C 288/40)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Föreningen Skydda Skogen

         Defendants: Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län, B.A.B.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds to be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the prohibition covers only those species which were listed in Annex 1 to Directive 2009/147, or are at some level at risk, or are suffering a long-term decline in population?

                  2.

                  Are the terms ‘intentional killing/disruption/destruction’ in Article 5(a)-(d) of Directive 2009/147 and of Article 12(a)-(c) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora to be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby, should the purpose of the measures be manifestly different from the killing or disturbance of species (for example, forestry measures or land development), there must be a risk of adverse effects on the conservation status of the species caused by the measures to apply the prohibitions?

                  3.

                  If the answer to any part of the second question is that harm at a level other than the individual level is to be assessed in order for the prohibition to apply, is the assessment therefore to be carried out on any of the following scales or at any of these levels:

                              a.

                              a certain geographically restricted part of the population as defined under (a), for example within the boundaries of the region, the Member State or the European Union;

                              b.

                              the local population concerned (biologically isolated from other populations of the species);

                              c.

                              the meta-population concerned;

                              d.

                              the whole population of the species within the relevant biogeographical regional section of the species’ range?

                  4.

                  Is the expression ‘deterioration or destruction’ as regards the animals’ breeding range in Article 12(d) of Directive 92/43 to be interpreted as excluding a national practice which means that, in spite of precautionary measures, the continuous ecological functionality (CEF) of the habitat of the species concerned is lost, whether by harm, destruction or deterioration, directly or indirectly, individually or cumulatively, so that the prohibition is applied only if the conservation status of the species concerned, at one of the levels referred to in question 3, is likely to deteriorate?

                  5.

                  If the answer to the fourth question is negative, that is to say that harm of a level other than one leading to the habitat in the individual area being assessed in order for the prohibition to be applied, is the assessment thus to be made on any of the following scales or at any of these levels:

                              a.

                              a certain geographically restricted part of the population as defined under (a), for example within the boundaries of the region, the Member State or the European Union;

                              b.

                              the local population concerned (biologically isolated from other populations of the species);

                              c.

                              the meta-population concerned;

                              d.

                              the whole population of the species within the relevant biogeographical regional section of the species’ range?
                              Questions 2 and 4 posed by the mark- och miljödomstolen (Land and Environment Court, Sweden) include the question of whether the strict protection in the directives ceases to be applicable to species for which the directive’s objective (favourable conservation status) has been achieved.

         (1)  OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7.

         (2)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Case C-562/18: Order of the President of the Court of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Sens — France) — X

text:
               26.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/38

      Order of the President of the Court of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Sens — France) — X
      (Case C-562/18) (1)

      (2019/C 288/48)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.


title: Case C-552/19 P: Appeal brought on 17 July 2019 by Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 May 2019 in Case T-283/18: Bernis e.a. v European Central Bank (ECB)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/28

      Appeal brought on 17 July 2019 by Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 May 2019 in Case T-283/18: Bernis e.a. v European Central Bank (ECB)
      (Case C-552/19 P)
      (2019/C 305/35)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA (represented by: O.H. Behrends, M. Kirchner, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

         Forms of order sought

      The appellants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 in case T-283/18;

                  —

                  declare that the application for annulment is admissible;

                  —

                  refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and

                  —

                  order the ECB to pay the appellants' costs and the costs of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The appellants put forward two pleas in law in support of their appeal:

                  1)

                  That the General Court erred in law and violated Art. 263 TFEU by failing to base its order on the decision which the ECB actually adopted.

                  2)

                  That the order under appeal is based on an incorrect interpretation of Art. 18(1) SRMR (1).

         (1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014, L 225, p. 1).


title: Case T-763/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Sony Optiarc and Sony Optiarc America v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers — Infringement by object — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of good administration — Fines — Single and continuous infringement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Sony Optiarc and Sony Optiarc America v Commission
      (Case T-763/15) (1)

      (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers - Infringement by object - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Fines - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
      (2019/C 305/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Sony Optiarc, Inc. (Atsugi, Japan) and Sony Optiarc America, Inc. (San Jose, United States) (represented by: R. Snelders, lawyer, N. Levy and E. Kelly, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: M. Farley, A. Biolan, C. Giolito, F. van Schaik and L. Wildpanner, and subsequently by M. Farley, F. van Schaik, L. Wildpanner and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Sony Optiarc, Inc. and Sony Optiarc America, Inc. to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Case T-772/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Quanta Storage v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of good administration — Fines — Single and continuous infringement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Quanta Storage v Commission
      (Case T-772/15) (1)

      (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Fines - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
      (2019/C 305/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Quanta Storage, Inc. (Taoyuan, Taiwan) (represented by: O. Geiss, lawyer, B. Hartnett, Barrister, and W. Sparks, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents, and by C. Thomas, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the European Commission’s request that the amount of the fine of Quanta Storage, Inc. be increased;

                  3.

                     Orders Quanta Storage to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Case T-1/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Hitachi-LG Data Storage and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements relating to procurement events organised by two computer manufacturers — Unlimited jurisdiction — Infringement of the principle of good administration — Obligation to state reasons — Point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Particular circumstances — Error of law)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Hitachi-LG Data Storage and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea v Commission
      (Case T-1/16) (1)

      (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to procurement events organised by two computer manufacturers - Unlimited jurisdiction - Infringement of the principle of good administration - Obligation to state reasons - Point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Particular circumstances - Error of law)
      (2019/C 305/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: L. Gyselen and N. Ersbøll, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: A. Biolan, M. Farley, C. Giolito and F. van Schaik, and subsequently by A. Biolan, M. Farley and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed by the European Commission on the applicants in its Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical Disk Drives).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc. to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Case T-180/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SHAPE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER SHAPE — Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SHAPE)
      (Case T-180/16 RENV) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER SHAPE - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 305/44)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Guinot (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2907/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Case T-183/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER DRAMA — Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA)
      (Case T-183/16 RENV) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER DRAMA - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 305/47)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Guinot (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2500/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Case T-289/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Keolis CIF and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 — Investment subsidies granted by the Île-de-France region — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and of ‘new aid’ — Article 107 TFEU — Article 108 TFEU — Article 1(b)(i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Limitation period — Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Keolis CIF and Others v Commission
      (Case T-289/17) (1)

      (State aid - Aid scheme implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 - Investment subsidies granted by the Île-de-France region - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and of ‘new aid’ - Article 107 TFEU - Article 108 TFEU - Article 1(b)(i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Limitation period - Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)
      (2019/C 305/48)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Keolis CIF (Le Mesnil-Amelot, France) and the seven other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: R. Sermier and D. Epaud, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France for bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24).

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Keolis CIF and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.