title: Case C-144/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Calabria — Italy) — Lloyd’s of London v Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente della Calabria (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Directive 2004/18/EC — Reasons for exclusion from a tendering procedure — Insurance services — Participation of several Lloyd’s of London syndicates in the same tendering procedure — Signature of tenders by the Lloyd’s of London General Representative for the country concerned — Principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination — Proportionality)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/6

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Calabria — Italy) — Lloyd’s of London v Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente della Calabria
   (Case C-144/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Directive 2004/18/EC - Reasons for exclusion from a tendering procedure - Insurance services - Participation of several Lloyd’s of London syndicates in the same tendering procedure - Signature of tenders by the Lloyd’s of London General Representative for the country concerned - Principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination - Proportionality))
   (2018/C 123/07)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Calabria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lloyd’s of London

      Defendant: Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente della Calabria

      Operative part of the judgment

   The principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination which derive from Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and are referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow two syndicates of Lloyd’s of London to be excluded from participation in the same procedure for the award of a public service contract for insurance merely because their respective tenders were each signed by the General Representative of Lloyd’s of London for that Member State, but instead allows their exclusion if it appears, on the basis of unambiguous evidence, that their tenders were not drawn up independently.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.


title: Case T-54/18: Action brought on 31 January 2018 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/25

         Action brought on 31 January 2018 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN)
   (Case T-54/18)
   (2018/C 123/32)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fashion Energy Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller, F. Togo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Retail Royalty Co. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark 1st AMERICAN — Application for registration No 8 622 078

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 in Case R 693/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               stay proceedings pursuant to Art. 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court until final and binding decision has been taken on the request for partial revocation against opposition mark EUTM 005066113;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-62/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Aeris Invest v SRB

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/25

         Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Aeris Invest v SRB
   (Case T-62/18)
   (2018/C 123/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, A. Sellés Marco, C. Iglesias Megías and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appeal Panel of the Single Resolution Board in Case 43/2017 of 28 November 2017, as well as confirmatory Decision SRB/CM01/ARES(2017)4898090 of 6 September 2017; and

               —

               Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Decision SRB/ES/2017/01 on public access to the Single Resolution Board documents (‘the Access Decision’) infringes Article 90 of Regulation 80/2014 and Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in that, first, it makes provisions ultra vires concerning the right of access to documents and, second, it creates exceptions to the right of access to documents which are not included in Regulation No 1049/2001. Thus, since its legal base is inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU, the Panel’s decision must be annulled.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Panel’s decision infringes Article 296 TFEU in that it merely claims, in vague and general terms, that disclosure of the full text of the 2016 Plan, the Resolution Decision and the Valuation Report infringes Article 4(1)(a) and 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Panel’s decision infringes Article 15 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that (i) the resolution policy for credit institutions is not a valid exception for restricting the fundamental right to access to documents, (ii) the requirements of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 are not met, and (iii) the valuation of the interests at stake makes it necessary to grant access to the documents requested.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Panel’s decision infringes Article 15 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that granting full access to the Resolution Decision, the Valuation Report and the 2016 Plan (i) does not affect the commercial interests of natural and legal persons and (ii) in any event, the weighing up of the interests at stake comes down in favour of granting access to the documents.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Panel’s decision infringes Article 15 TFEU and Article 88 of Regulation No 806/2014, by denying access to information which is not protected by professional secrecy provided that (i) there exists no presumption of confidentiality pursuant to Article 88 of Regulation No 806/2014 and Article 339 TFEU and (ii) even if a presumption of confidentiality did exist, it would not apply because the documents are being requested for use in the context of legal proceedings.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Panel’s decision amounts to misuse of power, in so far as it denies the applicant full access to the 2016 Plan claiming that that plan ‘is fully covered by the exceptions set out in the third indent of Article 4(1)(a), Article 4(1)(c) and Article 4(2) [of the Access Decision]’ whereas, in fact, there are credible reasons for believing that the reason for that denial is none other than to hide the mistakes, gaps and shortcomings vitiating that plan.


title: Case T-235/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Dometic Sweden v EUIPO (MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Dometic Sweden v EUIPO (MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY)
   (Case T-235/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 166/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dometic Sweden AB (Solna, Sweden) (represented by: R. Furneaux and E. Humphreys, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2017 (Case R 1832/2016-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dometic Sweden AB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case C-524/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Luca Menci (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Failure to pay VAT due — Penalties — National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Criminal nature of the administrative penalty — Existence of the same offence — Article 52(1) — Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle — Conditions)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Luca Menci
   (Case C-524/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Failure to pay VAT due - Penalties - National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Criminal nature of the administrative penalty - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle - Conditions))
   (2018/C 166/02)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bergamo

      Party in the main proceedings

   Luca Menci

      Intervener: Procura della Repubblica

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation in accordance with which criminal proceedings may be brought against a person for failing to pay value added tax due within the time limits stipulated by law, although that person has already been made subject, in relation to the same acts, to a final administrative penalty of criminal nature for the purposes of Article 50 of the Charter, on condition that that legislation

                           —

                           pursues an objective of general interest which is such as to justify such a duplication of proceedings and penalties, namely combating value added tax offences, it being necessary for those proceedings and penalties to pursue additional objectives,

                           —

                           contains rules ensuring coordination which limits to what is strictly necessary the additional disadvantage which results, for the persons concerned, from a duplication of proceedings, and

                           —

                           provides for rules making it possible to ensure that the severity of all of the penalties imposed is limited to what is strictly necessary in relation to the seriousness of the offence concerned.

               2.

               It is for the referring court to ensure, taking into account all of the circumstances in the main proceedings, that the actual disadvantage resulting for the person concerned from the application of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings and from the duplication of the proceedings and penalties that that legislation authorises is not excessive in relation to the seriousness of the offence committed.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Joined Cases C-688/15 and C-109/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — proceedings brought by Agnieška Anisimovienė and Others (C-688/15) and ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ VĮ (C-109/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes — Directive 94/19/EC — Article 1(1) — Deposits — Temporary situations deriving from normal banking transactions — Directive 97/9/EC — Second subparagraph of Article 2(2) — Money owed to or belonging to an investor and held on his behalf by an investment firm in connection with investment business — Credit institution which issues transferable securities — Funds transferred by individuals to that institution in respect of subscription to future transferable securities — Application of Directive 2004/39/EC — Insolvency of that institution before the transferable securities in question are issued — Public undertaking entrusted with the deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes — Ability to rely on Directives 94/19/EC and 97/9/EC against that undertaking)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — proceedings brought by Agnieška Anisimovienė and Others (C-688/15) and ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ VĮ (C-109/16)
   (Joined Cases C-688/15 and C-109/16) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes - Directive 94/19/EC - Article 1(1) - Deposits - Temporary situations deriving from normal banking transactions - Directive 97/9/EC - Second subparagraph of Article 2(2) - Money owed to or belonging to an investor and held on his behalf by an investment firm in connection with investment business - Credit institution which issues transferable securities - Funds transferred by individuals to that institution in respect of subscription to future transferable securities - Application of Directive 2004/39/EC - Insolvency of that institution before the transferable securities in question are issued - Public undertaking entrusted with the deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes - Ability to rely on Directives 94/19/EC and 97/9/EC against that undertaking))
   (2018/C 166/03)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Agnieška Anisimovienė and Others

      Other parties: bankas ‘Snoras’ AB, in liquidation, ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ VĮ, bankas ‘Finasta’ AB (C-688/15)
   ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ VĮ

      Other parties: Alvydas Raišelis, bankas ‘Snoras’ AB, in liquidation (C-109/16)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes, on the one hand, and Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, on the other, must be interpreted as meaning that claims relating to funds which were debited from accounts that individuals held with a credit institution and credited to accounts opened in that institution’s name, in respect of subscription to future transferable securities of which that institution was to be the issuer, in circumstances where owing to that institution’s insolvency those securities were ultimately not issued, fall within both the investor-compensation schemes provided for by Directive 97/9 and the deposit-guarantee schemes provided for by Directive 94/19.

               2.

               Article 2(3) of Directive 97/9 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where claims fall within both the deposit-guarantee schemes provided for by Directive 94/19 and the investor-compensation schemes provided for by Directive 97/9, and the national legislature has not directed such claims to a scheme under one or other of those directives, the court dealing with the case may not decide itself, on the basis of that provision, which scheme the holders of those claims may benefit from. On the contrary, in such a situation it falls to the holders of the claims to choose to be compensated by one or other of the schemes laid down in national law to implement those two directives.

               3.

               Article 1(1) of Directive 94/19, as amended by Directive 2009/14, and Article 1(4) and the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Directive 97/9, must be interpreted as being capable of being relied upon by individuals before the national courts in support of claims for compensation against a public undertaking entrusted, in a Member State, with the deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

      OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.


title: Case C-101/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Idi Srl v Arcadis — Agenzia Regionale Campana Difesa Suolo

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Idi Srl v Arcadis — Agenzia Regionale Campana Difesa Suolo
   (Case C-101/18)
   (2018/C 166/25)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Idi Srl

      Respondent: Arcadis — Agenzia Regionale Campana Difesa Suolo

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Article 45(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 (1) to regard a debtor that has merely made a request to the competent judicial body to enter into an arrangement with creditors as being ‘the subject of proceedings’?

               2.

               Is it compatible with the abovementioned provision to regard a debtor’s declaration that it is in a state of insolvency and wishes to submit a preliminary request (the features of which are described above) to enter into an arrangement with creditors as grounds for excluding that debtor from a public tendering procedure, thereby interpreting broadly the term ‘the subject of proceedings’ used in the provisions of Community law (Article 45 of the directive) and of national law (Article 38 of Legislative Decree No 163/2006), cited above?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Case T-229/16: Order of the General Court of 19 March 2018 –Pio de Bragança v EUIPO — Ordem de São Miguel da Ala (QUIS UT DEUS) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark QUIS UT DEUS — Failure to apply for renewal of registration of the mark — Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/29

         Order of the General Court of 19 March 2018 –Pio de Bragança v EUIPO — Ordem de São Miguel da Ala (QUIS UT DEUS)
   (Case T-229/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark QUIS UT DEUS - Failure to apply for renewal of registration of the mark - Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2018/C 166/38)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Duarte Pio de Bragança (Sintra, Portugal) (represented by: J. Sardinha, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ordem de São Miguel da Ala (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Motta Veiga, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2016 (Case R 621/2015-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Duarte Pio De Bragança and Ordem de São Miguel da Ala.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Case T-183/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VL and Others/Parliament

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/38

         Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VL and Others/Parliament
   (Case T-183/18)
   (2018/C 166/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: VL, VM, VN and VO (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and J. Probst, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The Applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               order the Defendant to produce, in accordance with Article 89 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court, the recording of the plenary session in question;

               —

               declare the present application for damages admissible and well-founded and, therefore,

                           i.

                           order the Defendant to compensate VL for the material and non-material damage resulting from the Defendant’s unlawful conduct and negligence;

                           ii.

                           order the Defendant to compensate VM, VN and VO for the material and non-material damage resulting from the Defendant’s unlawful conduct and negligence;

               —

               hear the case in camera in accordance with Article 31 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU and with Article 109 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court, in case the General Court should consider that the organisation of a hearing is necessary in the case at hand; and

               —

               order the Defendant to pay all the costs relating to the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the Applicants argue that:

               —

               the Defendant violated Articles 31 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, more generally, the general duty of care and diligence insofar as it failed to ensure that VL benefited from fair and just working conditions and from appropriate medical care and assistance;

               —

               due to the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, VL suffered material damage consisting of a significant reduction of his (current and future) professional income as well as non-material damage resulting from the irreversible and severe deterioration of his physical and mental condition, the loss of his political and academic careers and the very significant deterioration of his social and personal life;

               —

               due to the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, VM suffered material damage consisting in the loss of income; and that

               —

               due to the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, VM, VN and VO suffered material damage consisting in the payment of various administrative and legal fees and monthly nursing expenses and non-material damage.


title: Case C-537/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Garlsson Real Estate SA, in liquidation, Stefano Ricucci, Magiste International SA v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/6/EC — Market manipulation — Penalties — National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Criminal nature of the administrative penalties — Existence of the same offence — Article 52(1) — Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle — Conditions)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Garlsson Real Estate SA, in liquidation, Stefano Ricucci, Magiste International SA v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
   (Case C-537/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/6/EC - Market manipulation - Penalties - National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Criminal nature of the administrative penalties - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle - Conditions))
   (2018/C 166/14)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Garlsson Real Estate SA, in liquidation, Stefano Ricucci, Magiste International SA

      Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which permits the possibility of bringing administrative proceedings against a person in respect of unlawful conduct consisting in market manipulation for which the same person has already been finally convicted, in so far as that conviction is, given the harm caused to the company by the offence committed, such as to punish that offence in an effective, proportionate and dissuasive manner.

               2.

               The ne bis in idem principle guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union confers on individuals a right which is directly applicable in the context of a dispute such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case C-187/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC — Public service contracts — State printing office — Production of identity documents and other official documents — Award of contracts to an undertaking governed by private law without a procurement procedure first being conducted — Special security measures — Protection of the essential interests of the Member States)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-187/16) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC - Public service contracts - State printing office - Production of identity documents and other official documents - Award of contracts to an undertaking governed by private law without a procurement procedure first being conducted - Special security measures - Protection of the essential interests of the Member States))
   (2018/C 166/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: M. Fruhmann, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by having awarded, without an EU-wide call for tenders, service contracts for the production of chip passports, emergency passports, residence permits, identity cards, credit card-sized driving licences and credit card-sized vehicle registration certificates directly to Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH and by maintaining national provisions which require contracting authorities to award those service contracts directly to that company, without an EU-wide call for tenders, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) and Article 8 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, read in conjunction with Articles 11 to 37 of that directive, and Article 14 and Article 20 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read in conjunction with Articles 23 to 55 of that directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs of the European Commission, and the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case C-551/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — J. Klein Schiphorst v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 7, 63 and 64 — Unemployment benefits — Unemployed person going to another Member State — Retention of entitlement to benefits — Duration)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — J. Klein Schiphorst v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
   (Case C-551/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 7, 63 and 64 - Unemployment benefits - Unemployed person going to another Member State - Retention of entitlement to benefits - Duration))
   (2018/C 166/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: J. Klein Schiphorst

      Respondent: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 64(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that requires the competent institution to refuse, as a matter of principle, any request to extend the unemployment benefit export period beyond three months, provided the institution does not consider that refusing that request would lead to an unreasonable result.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.


title: Case C-133/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 20 February 2018 — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 20 February 2018 — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics
   (Case C-133/18)
   (2018/C 166/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

      Question referred

   Must Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it creates a limitation rule which has the effect that a taxable person of a Member State which applies for a refund of value added tax from a Member State in which it is not established is not able to regularise its refund application before a tax court if it has not complied with the time limit for replying to a request for information made by the administration in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of that article, or, on the contrary, as meaning that that taxable person may, in the context of the right of appeal laid down in Article 23 of the directive, and having regard to the principles of neutrality and proportionality of VAT, regularise its application before the tax court?

      (1)  Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 23).


title: Case T-822/16: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2018 — KiK Textilien und Non-Food v EUIPO — FF Group Romania (_kix) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark _kix — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Articles 173(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure — Intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Response lodged out of time)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/30

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2018 — KiK Textilien und Non-Food v EUIPO — FF Group Romania (_kix)
   (Case T-822/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark _kix - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate - Articles 173(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure - Intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal - Response lodged out of time))
   (2018/C 166/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany) (represented by: S. Körber and L. Pechan, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: FF Group Romania SRL (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: A. Cavescu, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2016 (Case R 2323/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between KiK Textilien und Non-Food and FF Group Romania.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH.

               3.

               FF Group Romania shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case C-244/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2018 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA v European Commission (Appeal — Plant protection products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 — Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution — Inclusion of active substance metalaxyl in that list — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures — Individually concerned person)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2018 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA v European Commission
   (Case C-244/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Plant protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 - Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution - Inclusion of active substance metalaxyl in that list - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures - Individually concerned person))
   (2018/C 166/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, C. Vila Gisbert and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, abogadas)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Case C-138/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 22 February 2018 — Skatteministeriet v Estron A/S

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 22 February 2018 — Skatteministeriet v Estron A/S
   (Case C-138/18)
   (2018/C 166/27)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteministeriet

      Defendant: Estron A/S

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Note 2(a) to Chapter 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, (1) read in conjunction with General Rules Nos 1 and 6 for the interpretation of the CN, to be interpreted as meaning that ‘parts and accessories, which are goods included in any of the headings of this chapter or of Chapter 84, 85 or 91’, refers to goods in the four-digit headings in those chapters, or is the Note to be interpreted as also referring to the related subheading notes (the first six digits) in Chapters 84, 85, 90 and 91?

               2.

               Should connectors such as those at issue in the present case be classified under CN subheading 8544 42 90, CN subheading 9021 40 00 or CN subheading 9021 90 10?

               3.

               Should Note 1(m) to section XVI be interpreted as meaning that where a good is included in Chapter 90, it cannot also be included in Chapters 84 and 85?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).


title: Case C-256/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Anti-dumping — Validity of a regulation seeking to implement a judgment of the Court declaring previous regulations invalid — Obligation to implement — Legal basis — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 14 — Setting of the criteria relating to the collection of anti-dumping duties by Member States — Direction suspending the repayment of anti-dumping duties by national customs authorities — Resumption of the proceeding that preceded the regulations declared invalid — Article 10 — Non-retroactivity — Community Customs Code — Article 221 — Time-bar — Article 236 — Repayment of duties not owed)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
   (Case C-256/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Anti-dumping - Validity of a regulation seeking to implement a judgment of the Court declaring previous regulations invalid - Obligation to implement - Legal basis - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 14 - Setting of the criteria relating to the collection of anti-dumping duties by Member States - Direction suspending the repayment of anti-dumping duties by national customs authorities - Resumption of the proceeding that preceded the regulations declared invalid - Article 10 - Non-retroactivity - Community Customs Code - Article 221 - Time-bar - Article 236 - Repayment of duties not owed))
   (2018/C 166/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deichmann SE

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

      Operative part of the judgment

   Consideration of the question referred has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 of 17 February 2016 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Case C-568/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürtingen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Faiz Rasool (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Payment services — Directive 2007/64/EC — Article 3(e) and (o) — Article 4(3) — Annex — Point 2 — Scope — Operation of multifunctional terminals enabling cash withdrawals in gaming arcades — Consistency of the practice of the national authorities in bringing prosecutions — Confiscation of sums obtained by means of an unlawful activity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 17)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürtingen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Faiz Rasool
   (Case C-568/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Payment services - Directive 2007/64/EC - Article 3(e) and (o) - Article 4(3) - Annex - Point 2 - Scope - Operation of multifunctional terminals enabling cash withdrawals in gaming arcades - Consistency of the practice of the national authorities in bringing prosecutions - Confiscation of sums obtained by means of an unlawful activity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 17))
   (2018/C 166/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Nürtingen

      Party to the main proceedings

   Faiz Rasool

      Other party to the proceedings: Rasool Entertainment GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(3) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, read in conjunction with point 2 of the annex to the directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a cash withdrawal service offered by a gaming arcade operator to his customers by means of multifunctional terminals in those arcades is not a ‘payment service’ within the meaning of that directive, where the operator does not carry out any operation on those customers’ payment accounts and the activities he performs on that occasion are confined to making the terminals available and loading them with cash.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-130/17: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Action for annulment — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Commission decision amending the conditions for exemption from the EU requirements of the rules governing operation of the OPAL pipeline in regard to third-party access and tariff regulation — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/31

         Order of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission
   (Case T-130/17) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Commission decision amending the conditions for exemption from the EU requirements of the rules governing operation of the OPAL pipeline in regard to third-party access and tariff regulation - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 166/40)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on the review of the conditions for exemption of the OPAL pipeline, granted under Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57), from the rules on third-party access and tariff regulation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene.

               3.

               Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

               4.

               The Federal Republic of Germany shall bear its own costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

               5.

               Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, OPAL Gastransport GmbH & Co. KG and Gazprom Eksport LLC shall each bear their own respective costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case T-187/18: Action brought on 9 March 2018 — VP v Cedefop

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/39

         Action brought on 9 March 2018 — VP v Cedefop
   (Case T-187/18)
   (2018/C 166/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: VP (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present appeal admissible and founded;

               —

               annul the decision of 12 May 2017 of the defendant rejecting the request of the applicant to renew the employment contract for an indefinite period;

               —

               annul the decision of 1 December 2017 of the defendant rejecting the complaint of the applicant of 9 August 2017 against the decision of 12 May 2017;

               —

               order the compensation of the immaterial damage suffered by the applicant, evaluated ex aequo et bono to 100 000 (one hundred thousand) euros;

               —

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

               —

               order the reimbursement of all the costs incurred by the applicant for the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law, alleging that: the decision of the defendant not to renew the employment contract of the applicant was adopted in violation of the right to be heard, the obligation of duty of care, the obligation to state reasons, in violation of the duty to hear the immediate superior; it suffers under a manifest error of appreciation and is vitiated by a misuse of powers.


title: Case C-575/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Notaries — Nationality requirement — Article 51 TFEU — Connection with the exercise of official authority)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-575/16) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 51 TFEU - Connection with the exercise of official authority))
   (2018/C 166/18)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Vláčil and A. Kasalická, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-134/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission (Interim proceedings — Access to documents — Documents relating to the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of a Commission decision on State aid implemented by Spain in favour of three professional football clubs — Rights of the defence — Refusal of access — Application for provisional measures — Lack of urgency)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/32

         Order of the President of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission
   (Case T-134/17 R)
   ((Interim proceedings - Access to documents - Documents relating to the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of a Commission decision on State aid implemented by Spain in favour of three professional football clubs - Rights of the defence - Refusal of access - Application for provisional measures - Lack of urgency))
   (2018/C 166/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Stromsky, G. Luengo and P. Němečková, and subsequently by: J. Baquero Cruz, G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking an order that the Commission grant access to the documents in the file relating to State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) granted by Spain to Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD, in so far as they concern the applicant and fundamental to the proper defence of its interests.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Joined Cases C-596/16 and C-597/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Enzo Di Puma v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (C-596/16), Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) v Antonio Zecca (C-597/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/6/EC — Insider dealing — Penalties — National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts — Res judicata attached to a final criminal judgment relating to administrative proceedings — Final criminal judgment ordering acquittal in respect of insider dealing — Effectiveness of the penalties — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Criminal nature of the administrative sanction — Existence of the same offence — Article 52(1) — Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle — Conditions)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/15

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Enzo Di Puma v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (C-596/16), Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) v Antonio Zecca (C-597/16)
   (Joined Cases C-596/16 and C-597/16) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/6/EC - Insider dealing - Penalties - National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts - Res judicata attached to a final criminal judgment relating to administrative proceedings - Final criminal judgment ordering acquittal in respect of insider dealing - Effectiveness of the penalties - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Criminal nature of the administrative sanction - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle - Conditions))
   (2018/C 166/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Enzo Di Puma (C-596/16), Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (C-597/16)

      Defendants: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (C-596/16), Antonio Zecca (C-597/16)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14(1) of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), read in the light of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation in accordance with which proceedings for an administrative fine of a criminal nature may not be brought following a final criminal judgment of acquittal ruling that the acts capable of constituting a violation of the legislation relating to insider dealing, on the basis of which those proceedings had also been initiated, were not established.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case C-147/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Almería (Spain) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Banco Mare Nostrum S.A. v Ignacio Jesús Berenguel Nieto, Carmen Sonia Salinas López

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Almería (Spain) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Banco Mare Nostrum S.A. v Ignacio Jesús Berenguel Nieto, Carmen Sonia Salinas López
   (Case C-147/18)
   (2018/C 166/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Almería

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Banco Mare Nostrum S.A.

      Respondents: Ignacio Jesús Berenguel Nieto, Carmen Sonia Salinas López

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a declaration, obtained by judgment, that an unfair term is non-binding, within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) preclude the application of all the effects acknowledged by the judgment [of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 December 2016, Gutiérrez Naranjo and Others, C-154/15, C-307/15 and C-308/15]?

               2.

               Is the application of the restitutory effects of a term held to be unfair within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts affected, limited or precluded by the principle that the subject-matter of an action is defined by the parties, the principle that the parties determine the facts and evidence forming the basis for a decision, the principle of substantive res judicata, and the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in pejus?

               3.

               Are the functions of a court of second instance limited by the fact that the judgment at first instance granted limited effect to a declaration of unfairness, and the judgment has not been appealed against by the consumer but only by the seller or supplier, who included the term, in order to dispute the unfairness of the term or any effects arising from the declaration that the term was unfair?

               4.

               Do the functions of a court of second instance extend to the possibility of applying all the consequences provided for in Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 and the case-law interpreting it, even where the consumer did not seek, in his initial claim in the application, all the effects deriving from a declaration that the term in question is unfair?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p 29.


title: Case T-108/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — University of Koblenz-Landau v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/32

         Action brought on 22 February 2018 — University of Koblenz-Landau v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
   (Case T-108/18)
   (2018/C 166/42)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: University of Koblenz-Landau (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: C. von der Lühe and I. Michel, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendants’ notice with the reference OF/2016/0720-EACEA UKOLD of 21 December 2017;

               —

               annul the defendants’ notice with the reference OF/2016/0720 of 7 February 2018;

               —

               suspend the execution of the defendants’ notices with the reference OF/2016/0720 of 21 December 2017 and 7 February 2018 and the defendants’ Debit Note No 3241802552 of 13 February 2018 until the final conclusion of the proceedings for the annulment of the notices contested in this action; and

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the right to a fair hearing
               The applicant complains that a premature definitive decision was reached, despite it being known that, without fault of the applicant, it was objectively impossible on the date of the decision for the documents proving appropriate use of funds to be submitted. Further, the objective impossibility of the provision of further information and evidence — for which the applicant was not responsible — was only temporary in nature.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a misapplication of EU law
               Further, the notices for recovery infringe Article 5(4) TFEU and Article 135(4) of the Financial Regulation and the agreement between the parties, as the actual conditions for recovery are not known.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state adequate reasons for the recovery measures
               The recovery notices contain only superficial, general comments without discussions of specific cases and their content is therefore incomprehensible.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality
               The recovery of the entire amount can only be used as a measure of last resort in certain exceptional circumstances, which are not present in the instant case.


title: Case C-154/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Labour Court, (Ireland) made on 27 February 2018 — Tomás Horgan, Claire Keegan v Minister for Education & Skills, Minister for Finance, Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Labour Court, (Ireland) made on 27 February 2018 — Tomás Horgan, Claire Keegan v Minister for Education & Skills, Minister for Finance, Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
   (Case C-154/18)
   (2018/C 166/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   The Labour Court, Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Tomás Horgan, Claire Keegan

      Defendants: Minister for Education & Skills, Minister for Finance, Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does it constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of age, within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, for a Member State, in its capacity as an employer, to introduce lower salary scales for new entrants to the profession of national teacher while leaving unaltered the pay of those teachers already in employment, where:

                           a)

                           the revised salary scales and the existing salary scales apply to all teachers in the respective categories regardless of their age;

                           b)

                           at the point at which they were recruited and placed on the respective scales there was no difference in the age profile of those in the higher paid group and those in the lower paid group;

                           c)

                           the introduction of the revised scales has resulted in a substantial difference in pay as between two groups of teachers who are engaged in work of equal value;

                           d)

                           the average age of those placed on the reduced salary scales is lower than that of the average age of those on the original salary scales;

                           e)

                           at the point at which the lower salary scales were introduced, the State’s statistics showed that 70 % of teachers appointed were 25 years of age or under and it was acknowledged that this was typical of the age profile of entrants to national teaching in any given year; and

                           f)

                           national teachers who entered the profession in 2011 and later suffer a clear financial disadvantage in comparison to their teaching colleagues appointed prior to 2011.

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, can the introduction of the lower salary scales be objectively justified by a requirement to achieve a medium- to long-term structural reduction in the cost of the public service, having regard to budgetary constraints facing the State and/or the importance of maintaining good industrial relations with existing civil and public servants?

               3.

               Would the answer to question 2 be different if the State could have achieved equivalent savings by reducing the pay of all teachers by a significantly lesser amount than the reduction applied only to newly recruited teachers?

               4.

               Would the answer to questions 2 or 3 be different if the decision not to reduce the salary scales applicable to teachers already in employment was taken in compliance with a collective agreement between the Government as an employer and the trade unions representing public service workers whereby the Government committed not to further reduce the pay of existing public servants who had already been subject to pay cuts and the industrial relations consequences that would flow from a failure to comply with that agreement, having regard to the fact that the new pay scale introduced in 2011 did not form part of such a collective agreement?

      (1)  OJ 2000, L 303, p. 16.


title: Case T-188/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — Papaconstantinou and Others v Council and Others

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/40

         Action brought on 12 March 2018 — Papaconstantinou and Others v Council and Others
   (Case T-188/18)
   (2018/C 166/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Adonis Papaconstantinou (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 722 others (represented by: A. Markides, M. Ioannides, C. Velaris and C. Velaris, lawyers, A. Robertson, QC, and G. Rothschild, Barrister)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup (represented by the Council of the European Union) and European Union (represented by the European Commission)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus;

         or in the alternative:

               —

               declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants;

         and in any event:

               —

               order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-147/18, APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others.


title: Case C-159/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 27 February 2018 — André Moens v Ryanair Ltd

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 27 February 2018 — André Moens v Ryanair Ltd
   (Case C-159/18)
   (2018/C 166/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: André Moens

      Defendant: Ryanair Ltd

      Questions referred

   [The] request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of 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 (1) [is] worded as follows:

               1.

               Does the circumstance at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, fall to be classified under the notion of an ‘event’ within the meaning of paragraph 22 of the judgment of 22 December 2008, Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, EU:C:2008:771), or under that of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of recital 14 of that regulation, as interpreted by the judgment of 31 January 2013, McDonagh (C-12/11, EU:C:2013:43), or do those two concepts overlap?

               2.

               Must 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, be interpreted as meaning that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, must be found to be an event inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of an air carrier and, accordingly, cannot be classified as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ capable of exonerating the air carrier from its obligation to compensate passengers in the case where a flight operated by that carrier is subjected to a significant delay?

               3.

               If an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, must be found to be an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, must it be inferred from this that, for the air carrier, this is an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-110/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Grange Backup Power v Commission

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/33

         Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Grange Backup Power v Commission
   (Case T-110/18)
   (2018/C 166/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Grange Backup Power Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7789 final of 24 November 2017 on the Irish Capacity Mechanism (SA.44464 (2017/N)) implemented by Ireland;

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7794 final of 24 November 2017 on the Northern Irish Capacity Mechanism (SA.44465 (2017/N)) implemented by the United Kingdom; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, based on the failure of the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the Procedural Regulation, (1) notwithstanding the doubts raised as to the compatibility of the all-island capacity remuneration mechanism (CRM) with the state aid and internal market rules, thereby depriving the applicant of its procedural rights. This plea is divided into four branches:

               —

               the first branch refers to the existence of serious difficulties evidenced by the duration and circumstances of the procedure;

               —

               the second branch alleges that the Commission should have had doubts regarding the compliance of the financing mechanism of the capacity remuneration mechanism with the TFEU;

               —

               the third branch alleges that the Commission should have had doubts regarding the compatibility of the CRM with the internal market, in particular the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020; (2)

               —

               in the fourth branch of its plea the applicant alleges that the Commission should have had doubts in its assessment of the capacity remuneration mechanism resulting from the effects of the United Kingdom’s notification to leave the European Union.

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

      (2)  Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1).


title: Case C-104/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — SC Cali Esprou SRL v Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Recovery and recycling of waste — National environmental fund contribution — National marketing of packaged products and their packaging, without alteration — ‘Polluter-pays’ principle — Status of polluter)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/16

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — SC Cali Esprou SRL v Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu
   (Case C-104/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Recovery and recycling of waste - National environmental fund contribution - National marketing of packaged products and their packaging, without alteration - ‘Polluter-pays’ principle - Status of polluter))
   (2018/C 166/20)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Piteşti

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Cali Esprou SRL

      Defendant: Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 15 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste and the ‘polluter-pays’ principle which it implements do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a contribution on an economic operator which does not make any alteration to the packaging which it places on the market, calculated on the basis of the difference in weight between, on the one hand, the quantity of packaging waste corresponding to the minimum targets for energy recovery and recovery by recycling and the quantity of packaging waste actually recovered or recycled.

      (1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


title: Case T-189/18: Action brought on 15 March 2018 — Lipitalia 2000 and Assograssi v Commission

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/40

         Action brought on 15 March 2018 — Lipitalia 2000 and Assograssi v Commission
   (Case T-189/18)
   (2018/C 166/52)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Lipitalia 2000 SpA (Turin, Italy), Assograssi — Associazione Nazionale Produttori Grassi e Proteine Animali (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Moretto, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to put to a vote, by the Regulatory Committee, pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 5a of Decision 1999/[468]/EC, a draft proposal to re-examine the prohibition on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers containing processed animal protein derived from ruminants, at present provided for in Annex IV, Chapter V, Section E, point 2, to Regulation No 999/2001, the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation No 999/2001, Regulation No 178/2002 and Regulation No 1069/2009, and has infringed the general principles of non-discrimination and proportionality;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants submit that even though, from 1 July 2017, the Commission has authorised once again the exportation of processed animal protein (PAP) derived from ruminants in view of the marked improvement in regard to the epidemiological status of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) in the European Union, the exportation of organic fertilisers and soil improvers (OFSIs) containing PAP remains inexplicably prohibited under Annex IV, Chapter V, Section E, point 2, to Regulation No 999/2001. That ban remains in force, even though almost all the Member States are now countries recognised as having a negligible BSE risk, despite the fact that the international standard determined by the OIE (Office international des épizooties) does not provide for a similar ban on OFSIs originating in countries which do have that risk status.
   Moreover, according to the applicants, although the exportation of OFSIs (containing ruminant PAP) — even those originating in Member States recognised as having a negligible BSE risk — is, by contrast to the international standard determined by the OIE, prohibited, the European Union authorises the marketing of those products on its territory. What is more, it even authorises the importation of PAP from third countries, including countries recognised as having a controlled or undetermined BSE risk, including PAP derived from ruminants, and of products containing PAP, namely OFSIs.
   The damage suffered by EU operators as a result of that ban on exporting OFSIs containing PAP from ruminants is, the applicants argue, enormous.
   In support of their action, the applicants take the view that the Commission has an obligation under EU law to remedy the situation.
   Specifically, the applicants rely on:

               1.

               Failure of the Commission to meet its obligations under Articles 7 and 5(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2001 L 147, p. 1), under Articles 5(3) and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law and laying down food safety procedures (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1), and under Article 43(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 1).

               2.

               Failure of the Commission to meet its obligation to act, in accordance with the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality, under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and under Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.


title: Joined Cases C-327/16 and C-421/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Marc Jacob v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (C-327/16), Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics v Marc Lassus (C-421/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States — Directive 90/434/EEC — Article 8 — Exchange of securities — Capital gains relating to that transaction — Deferred taxation — Capital losses upon the subsequent transfer of securities received — Tax competence of the State of residence — Difference in treatment — Justification — Preservation of the allocation of fiscal competence between Member States)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Marc Jacob v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (C-327/16), Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics v Marc Lassus (C-421/16)
   (Joined Cases C-327/16 and C-421/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Directive 90/434/EEC - Article 8 - Exchange of securities - Capital gains relating to that transaction - Deferred taxation - Capital losses upon the subsequent transfer of securities received - Tax competence of the State of residence - Difference in treatment - Justification - Preservation of the allocation of fiscal competence between Member States))
   (2018/C 166/07)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marc Jacob (C-327/16), Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (C–421/16)

      Defendants: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (C-327/16), Marc Lassus (C-421/16)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 8 of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, as adjusted by Decision 95/1/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the Council of the European Union of 1 January 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the capital gain resulting from an exchange of securities falling within the scope of that directive is established when the transaction occurs, but is taxed in the year in which the event putting an end to the deferred taxation occurs: in this case, the transfer of the securities received in exchange.

               2.

               Article 8 of the Directive 90/434, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, as adjusted by Decision 95/1, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State that provides for the taxation of the capital gain relating to an exchange of securities, in a case where taxation of the gain has been deferred, upon a subsequent transfer of the securities received in exchange, even though that transfer does not fall within the fiscal competence of that Member State.

               3.

               Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which, in a situation where the subsequent transfer of securities received in exchange does not fall within the fiscal competence of that Member State, provides for taxation of the capital gain that is subject to tax deferral upon that transfer without taking into account any capital loss occurring at that time, whereas account is taken of such a capital loss when the taxpayer holding the securities is resident for tax purposes in that Member State on the date of the transfer. It is for the Member States, in compliance with EU law and, in the present case, the freedom of establishment in particular, to provide detailed rules for offsetting and calculating that capital loss.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

      OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case C-169/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 2 March 2018 — Atif Mahmood, Shabina Atif, Mohammed Ahsan, Noor Habib, Mohammed Haroon, Nik Bibi Haroon v Minister for Justice and Equality

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 2 March 2018 — Atif Mahmood, Shabina Atif, Mohammed Ahsan, Noor Habib, Mohammed Haroon, Nik Bibi Haroon v Minister for Justice and Equality
   (Case C-169/18)
   (2018/C 166/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (Ireland)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Atif Mahmood, Shabina Atif, Mohammed Ahsan, Noor Habib, Mohammed Haroon, Nik Bibi Haroon

      Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

      Questions referred

               1.

               Subject to the potential justifications described in Questions 2, 3 and 4, is a Member State in breach of the requirement in Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1)‘the 2004 Directive’) to issue a visa as quickly as possible to the spouse and family Members of a Union citizen exercising free movement rights in the Member State in question or intending to exercise such rights where the delays in processing such an application exceed 12 months or more?

               2.

               Without prejudice to Question 1, are delays in processing or otherwise deciding on an application for a visa pursuant to Article 5(2) arising from the necessity to ensure in particular by way of background checks that the application is not fraudulent or an abuse of rights, including that the marriage amounts to a marriage of convenience, whether by virtue of Article 35 of the 2004 Directive or otherwise and thus not a breach of Article 5(2)?

               3.

               Without prejudice to Question 1, are delays in processing or deciding on an application for a visa pursuant to Article 5(2) arising from the necessity to conduct extensive background and security checks on persons coming from certain third countries because of specific concerns relating to security in respect of travellers coming from those third countries, whether by virtue of Article 27 or Article 35 of the 2004 Directive or otherwise justifiable and thus not in breach of Article 5(2)?

               4.

               Without prejudice to Question 1, are delays in processing or deciding on an application for a visa pursuant to Article 5(2) arising from a sudden and anticipated surge in such applications coming from certain third countries which are thought to present real security concerns justifiable and thus not in breach of Article 5(2)?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).


title: Case C-355/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Council of State, France) — Christian Picart v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Direct taxation — Transfer of the place of residence from a Member State to Switzerland — Taxation of unrealised gains on significant shareholdings in a number of companies established in the Member State of origin at the time of such transfer — Scope of the Agreement)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Council of State, France) — Christian Picart v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics
   (Case C-355/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Direct taxation - Transfer of the place of residence from a Member State to Switzerland - Taxation of unrealised gains on significant shareholdings in a number of companies established in the Member State of origin at the time of such transfer - Scope of the Agreement))
   (2018/C 166/08)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Council of State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Christian Picart

      Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

      Operative part of the judgment

   Where a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not come within the scope ratione personae of the notion of ‘self-employed persons’, within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, the terms of that agreement must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a State party to that agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, when a natural person transfers his residence from that State to another State party to that agreement, while maintaining his economic activity in the first of those two States, without undertaking every day, or at least once a week, a journey from the place of his economic activity to that of his residence, provides for the immediate taxation of the unrealised capital gains on significant shareholdings held by that person in companies governed by the laws of the first State at the time of the transfer of residence and which allows deferred recovery of the tax due only if suitable guarantees to ensure recovery of the tax are provided, whereas a person who also holds such shareholdings, but who continues to reside in the territory of the first of those States, need pay tax only at the time of transfer of those shareholdings.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.09.2016.


title: Joined Cases C-133/17 and C-134/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Dănuţ Podilă and Others v Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători ‘CFR Călători’ SA București (C-133/17), Costel Nicușor Mucea v SMDA Mureş Insolvency SRL, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of SC Industria Sârmei SA Campia Turzii (C-134/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and health of workers at work — Classification of work places as places characterised by particular or special conditions — Assessment of the risks to safety and health at work — Employer’s obligations)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/17

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Dănuţ Podilă and Others v Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători ‘CFR Călători’ SA București (C-133/17), Costel Nicușor Mucea v SMDA Mureş Insolvency SRL, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of SC Industria Sârmei SA Campia Turzii (C-134/17)
   (Joined Cases C-133/17 and C-134/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 89/391/EEC - Safety and health of workers at work - Classification of work places as places characterised by particular or special conditions - Assessment of the risks to safety and health at work - Employer’s obligations))
   (2018/C 166/21)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Dănuţ Podilă, Vasile Oniţă, Dumitru Cornel Bara, Gheorghe Podilă, Alexandru Daniel Coneru, Mihai Călin Junc, Dănuţ Bungău, Francisc Chudi, Ioan Iancu, Ionel Negruţ, Dan Florin Roxin (C-133/17), Costel Nicușor Mucea (C-134/17)

      Defendants: Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători ‘CFR Călători’ SA București (C-133/17), SMDA Mureş Insolvency SRL, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of SC Industria Sârmei SA Campia Turzii (C-134/17)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 114(3) and Articles 151 and 153 TFEU and Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work must be interpreted as not being applicable to national laws, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down strict deadlines and procedures not allowing the national courts to review or establish the classification of the activities of workers in various risk groups, on the basis of which retirement pensions are calculated for those workers.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.


title: Case T-136/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Kuota International v EUIPO — Sintema Sport (K)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/34

         Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Kuota International v EUIPO — Sintema Sport (K)
   (Case T-136/18)
   (2018/C 166/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Kuota International Corp. Ltd (British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sintema Sport Srl (Albiate, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative trade mark K — European Union trade mark No 11 380 771

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 3111/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               hold and rule that the present action is admissible;

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it found that the applicant did not provide evidence of bad faith and held that the action seeking a declaration of invalidity based on Article 59(1)(b) of the EUTMR may not be allowed;

               —

               declare European Union trade mark No 11 380 771 invalid on the basis of Article 59(1)(b) of the EUTMR;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.