title: Case T-749/18: Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Daimler v EUIPO (ROAD EFFICIENCY)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/45

      Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Daimler v EUIPO (ROAD EFFICIENCY)
      (Case T-749/18)
      (2019/C 65/59)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ROAD EFFICIENCY — Application for registration No 15 814 536

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2018 in Case R 2701/2017-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-310/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 325(1) TFEU — Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests — Criminal proceedings concerning VAT offences — Principle of effectiveness — Taking of evidence — Interception of telecommunications — Authorisation granted by a court that lacks jurisdiction — Taking those interceptions into consideration as evidence — Provisions of national law — Prohibition)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/2

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev and Others
      (Case C-310/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 325(1) TFEU - Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests - Criminal proceedings concerning VAT offences - Principle of effectiveness - Taking of evidence - Interception of telecommunications - Authorisation granted by a court that lacks jurisdiction - Taking those interceptions into consideration as evidence - Provisions of national law - Prohibition))
      (2019/C 93/02)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

         Parties in the main proceedings

      Petar Dzivev, Galina Angelova, Georgi Dimov, Milko Velkov

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 325(1) TFEU, and Article 1(1)(b) and Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Luxembourg on 26 July 1995, read in conjunction with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted to the effect that, in the light of the principle of effectiveness of the prosecution of value added tax (VAT) offences, they do not preclude a national court from applying a national provision excluding, from a prosecution, evidence such as the interception of telecommunications requiring prior judicial authorisation, where that authorisation was given by a court that lacked jurisdiction, in a situation in which that evidence alone is capable of proving that the offences in question were committed.

         (1)  OJ C 310, 29.8.2016.


title: Case C-162/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2019 — Republic of Poland v Stock Polska sp. z o.o., European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Lass & Steffen GmbH Wein- und Spirituosen-Import (Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1) — Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element LUBELSKA — Dominant and distinctive element)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/3

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2019 — Republic of Poland v Stock Polska sp. z o.o., European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Lass & Steffen GmbH Wein- und Spirituosen-Import
      (Case C-162/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1) - Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element LUBELSKA - Dominant and distinctive element))
      (2019/C 93/03)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Stock Polska sp. z o.o. (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, radca prawny), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Rajh and D. Botis, acting as Agents), Lass & Steffen GmbH Wein- und Spirituosen-Import (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwalt)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case C-165/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Morgan Stanley & Co International plc v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Goods and services used for both taxable transactions and exempt transactions (mixed-use goods and services) — Determination of the applicable deductible proportion — Branch established in a Member State other than that of the principal establishment of the company — Expenditure incurred by the branch used exclusively for the transactions of the principal establishment — General costs of the branch used for both its transactions and those of the principal establishment)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/3

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Morgan Stanley & Co International plc v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
      (Case C-165/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input tax - Goods and services used for both taxable transactions and exempt transactions (mixed-use goods and services) - Determination of the applicable deductible proportion - Branch established in a Member State other than that of the principal establishment of the company - Expenditure incurred by the branch used exclusively for the transactions of the principal establishment - General costs of the branch used for both its transactions and those of the principal establishment))
      (2019/C 93/04)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d'État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Morgan Stanley & Co International plc

         Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 17(2), (3) and (5) and Article 19(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and Articles 168, 169 and 173 to 175 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in relation to the expenditure borne by a branch registered in a Member State, which is used, exclusively, both for transactions subject to value added tax and for transactions exempt from that tax, carried out by the principal establishment of that branch established in another Member State, it is necessary to apply a deductible proportion resulting from a fraction the denominator of which is formed by the turnover, exclusive of value added tax, made up of those transactions alone and the numerator of which is formed by the taxed transactions in respect of which value added tax which would also be deductible if they had been carried out in the Member State in which that branch is registered, including where that right to deduct stems from the exercise of an option, effected by that branch, consisting in making the transactions carried out in that State subject to value added tax.

                  2.

                  Article 17(2), (3) and (5) and Article 19(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388, and Articles 168, 169 and 173 to 175 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the deductible proportion applicable to the general costs of a branch registered in a Member State, which are used for both transactions of that branch in that State and transactions of the principal establishment of that branch established in another Member State, account must be taken, in the denominator of the fraction which makes up that deductible proportion, of the transactions carried out by both that branch and that principal establishment, it being specified that it is necessary that, in the numerator of that fraction, besides the taxed transactions carried out by that branch, solely the taxed transactions carried out by that principal establishment must appear, in respect of which value added tax would also be deductible if they had been carried out in the State in which the branch concerned is registered.

         (1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.


title: Case C-193/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Cresco Investigation GmbH v Markus Achatzi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 21 — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 2(2)(a) — Direct discrimination on grounds of religion — National legislation granting certain employees a day’s holiday on Good Friday — Justification — Article 2(5) — Article 7(1) — Obligations of private employers and national courts resulting from the incompatibility of national law with Directive 2000/78)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/6

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Cresco Investigation GmbH v Markus Achatzi
      (Case C-193/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 21 - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(2)(a) - Direct discrimination on grounds of religion - National legislation granting certain employees a day’s holiday on Good Friday - Justification - Article 2(5) - Article 7(1) - Obligations of private employers and national courts resulting from the incompatibility of national law with Directive 2000/78))
      (2019/C 93/06)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Cresco Investigation GmbH

         Defendant: Markus Achatzi

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Articles 1 and 2(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation under which, first, Good Friday is a public holiday only for employees who are members of certain Christian churches and, second, only those employees are entitled, if required to work on that public holiday, to a payment in addition to their regular salary for work done on that day, constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of religion.
                  The measures provided for by that national legislation cannot be regarded either as measures necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, within the meaning of Article 2(5) of that directive, or as specific measures intended to compensate for disadvantages linked to religion, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the directive.

                  2.

                  Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that, until the Member State concerned has amended its legislation granting the right to a public holiday on Good Friday only to employees who are members of certain Christian churches, in order to restore equal treatment, a private employer who is subject to such legislation is obliged also to grant his other employees a public holiday on Good Friday, provided that the latter have sought prior permission from that employer to be absent from work on that day, and, consequently, to recognise that those employees are entitled to a payment in addition to their regular salary for work done on that day where the employer has refused to approve such a request.

         (1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.


title: Case C-258/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — E.B. v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter BVA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2 — Attempted act of same-sex indecency committed by a civil servant on male minors — Disciplinary sanction adopted in 1975 — Compulsory early retirement accompanied by a reduction in the pension entitlement — Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation — Effects of the application of Directive 2000/78/EC on the disciplinary sanction — Calculation of the retirement pension paid)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/7

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — E.B. v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter BVA
      (Case C-258/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2 - Attempted act of same-sex indecency committed by a civil servant on male minors - Disciplinary sanction adopted in 1975 - Compulsory early retirement accompanied by a reduction in the pension entitlement - Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation - Effects of the application of Directive 2000/78/EC on the disciplinary sanction - Calculation of the retirement pension paid))
      (2019/C 93/07)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant on a point of law: E.B.

         Respondent body: Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter BVA

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as applying, after the expiry of the time limit for transposing that directive, namely from 3 December 2003, to the future effects of a final disciplinary decision, adopted before the entry into force of that directive, ordering the early retirement of a civil servant, accompanied by a reduction in his pension entitlement.

                  2.

                  Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that referred to in point 1 of the operative part of the present judgment, it obliges the national court to review, with respect to the period starting on 3 December 2003, not the final disciplinary decision ordering the early retirement of the civil servant concerned, but the reduction in his pension entitlement, in order to calculate the amount he would have received in the absence of any discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.

         (1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.


title: Case C-265/17 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2019 — European Commission v United Parcel Service, Inc., FedEx Corp. (Appeal — Merger control — Acquisition of TNT Express by UPS — Commission Decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement — Econometric model developed by the Commission — Failure to disclose amendments made to the econometric model — Infringement of the rights of the defence)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/7

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2019 — European Commission v United Parcel Service, Inc., FedEx Corp.
      (Case C-265/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Merger control - Acquisition of TNT Express by UPS - Commission Decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement - Econometric model developed by the Commission - Failure to disclose amendments made to the econometric model - Infringement of the rights of the defence))
      (2019/C 93/08)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, N. Khan, H. Leupold and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: United Parcel Service, Inc. (represented by: A. Ryan, Solicitor, F. Hoseinian, advokat, W. Knibbeler, S.A. Pliego and P. van den Berg, advocaten, and F. Roscam Abbing, advocate), FedEx Corp. (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, G. Bushell, Solicitor, and N. Niejahr, Rechtsanwältin)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


title: Case C-313/17 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2019 — George Haswani v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Admissibility — Procedure for modifying the application — Need to modify the pleas in law and arguments — Restrictive measures adopted against the Syrian Arab Republic — List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/9

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2019 — George Haswani v Council of the European Union, European Commission
      (Case C-313/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Admissibility - Procedure for modifying the application - Need to modify the pleas in law and arguments - Restrictive measures adopted against the Syrian Arab Republic - List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name))
      (2019/C 93/10)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: George Haswani (represented by: G. Karouni, avocat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Sikora-Kalėda and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: L. Havas and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 March 2017, Haswani v Council (T-231/15, not published, EU:T:2017:200);

                  2.

                  Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Orders the costs to be reserved.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case C-386/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Stefano Liberato v Luminita Luisa Grigorescu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments on maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 5(2) — Article 27 — Article 35(3) — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 19 — Lis pendens — Article 22(a) — Article 23(a) — Non-recognition where the decisions are manifestly contrary to public policy — Article 24 — Prohibition of review of jurisdiction of the court of origin — Ground for the non-recognition based on a breach of the rules of lis pendens — Absence)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/10

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Stefano Liberato v Luminita Luisa Grigorescu
      (Case C-386/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments on maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(2) - Article 27 - Article 35(3) - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 19 - Lis pendens - Article 22(a) - Article 23(a) - Non-recognition where the decisions are manifestly contrary to public policy - Article 24 - Prohibition of review of jurisdiction of the court of origin - Ground for the non-recognition based on a breach of the rules of lis pendens - Absence))
      (2019/C 93/12)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte suprema di cassazione

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Stefano Liberato

         Respondent: Luminita Luisa Grigorescu

         Operative part of the judgment

      The rules of lis pendens in Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that where, in a dispute in matrimonial matters, parental responsibility or maintenance obligations, the court second seised, in breach of those rules, delivers a judgment which becomes final, those articles preclude the courts of the Member State in which the court first seised is situated from refusing to recognise that judgment solely for that reason. In particular, that breach cannot, in itself, justify non-recognition of a judgment on the ground that it is manifestly contrary to public policy in that Member State.

         (1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.


title: Case C-387/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri v Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Existing aid and new aid — Classification — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(iv) and (v) — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations — Applicability — Subsidies granted before the liberalisation of a market initially closed to competition — Action for damages against the Member State brought by a competitor of the beneficiary company)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/11

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri v Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA
      (Case C-387/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Existing aid and new aid - Classification - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(iv) and (v) - Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations - Applicability - Subsidies granted before the liberalisation of a market initially closed to competition - Action for damages against the Member State brought by a competitor of the beneficiary company))
      (2019/C 93/13)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte suprema di cassazione

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri

         Defendant: Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Subsidies granted to an undertaking before the date of liberalisation of the market concerned, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, cannot be classified as existing aid because of the merely formal absence of liberalisation of that market at the time those subsidies were granted, to the extent that those subsidies were liable to affect trade between Member States and distorted or threatened to distort competition, which it is for the referring court to ascertain;

                  2.

                  Article 1(b)(iv) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings. In so far as the subsidies at issue in the main proceedings were granted in breach of the obligation of prior notification laid down in Article 93 of the EEC Treaty, State entities cannot rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where an action for damages against the Member State is brought by a competitor of the beneficiary company, the principle of legal certainty does not permit, by analogy, a limitation period, such as that laid down in Article 15(1) of that regulation, to be imposed on the applicant.

         (1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.


title: Case C-389/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by ‘Paysera LT’ UAB, formerly ‘EVP International’ UAB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taking up of the business of electronic money institutions — Directive 2009/110/EC — Article 5(2) and (3) — Rules on own funds — Own funds required for the pursuit of activities linked to the issuance of electronic money — Definition of ‘activity linked to the issuance of electronic money’ — Issuance, for the benefit of the seller, of electronic money at par value of the funds received)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/12

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by ‘Paysera LT’ UAB, formerly ‘EVP International’ UAB
      (Case C-389/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taking up of the business of electronic money institutions - Directive 2009/110/EC - Article 5(2) and (3) - Rules on own funds - Own funds required for the pursuit of activities linked to the issuance of electronic money - Definition of ‘activity linked to the issuance of electronic money’ - Issuance, for the benefit of the seller, of electronic money at par value of the funds received))
      (2019/C 93/14)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant:‘Paysera LT’ UAB, formerly ‘EVP International’ UAB

         Other party: Lietuvos bankas

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 5(2) of Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC, must be interpreted as meaning that services provided by electronic money institutions in payment transactions such as those at issue in the main proceedings constitute activities linked to the issuance of electronic money, within the meaning of that provision, if those services trigger the issuance or redemption of electronic money in a single payment transaction.

         (1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.


title: Case C-419/17 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 January 2019 — Deza, a.s. v European Chemicals Agency, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Norway (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Annex XIV — Establishment of a list of substances subject to authorisation — Inclusion in the list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV — Updating of the entry of the substance bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in the list — Misinterpretation and misapplication of the REACH Regulation and of the principle of legal certainty — Distortion of the facts and evidence — Scope of the review)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/12

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 January 2019 — Deza, a.s. v European Chemicals Agency, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Norway
      (Case C-419/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Annex XIV - Establishment of a list of substances subject to authorisation - Inclusion in the list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV - Updating of the entry of the substance bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in the list - Misinterpretation and misapplication of the REACH Regulation and of the principle of legal certainty - Distortion of the facts and evidence - Scope of the review))
      (2019/C 93/15)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Appellant: Deza, a.s. (represented by: P.Dejl, advokát)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere, N. Herbatschek and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by M. Procházka and M. Mašková, advokáti), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Nymann-Lindegren and M. Wolff, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev and L. Zettergren, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Norway

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Deza, a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

                  3.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.


title: Case C-477/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank v D. Balandin, I. Lukachenko, Holiday on Ice Services BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 — Applicable legislation — A1 certificate — Article 1 — Extension of coordination of social security systems to citizens of third countries residing legally in the territory of a Member State — Legal residence — Concept)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/14

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank v D. Balandin, I. Lukachenko, Holiday on Ice Services BV
      (Case C-477/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 - Applicable legislation - A1 certificate - Article 1 - Extension of coordination of social security systems to citizens of third countries residing legally in the territory of a Member State - Legal residence - Concept))
      (2019/C 93/17)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Centrale Raad van Beroep

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

         Defendants: D. Balandin, I. Lukachenko, Holiday on Ice Services BV

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality must be interpreted as meaning that third country nationals, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, who temporarily reside and work in different Member States in the service of an employer established in a Member State, may rely on the coordination rules laid down by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for Regulation No 883/2004, in order to determine the social security legislation to which they are subject, provided that they are legally staying and working in the territory of the Member States.

         (1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.


title: Case C-496/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deutsche Post AG v Hauptzollamt Köln (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — The Union Customs Code — Article 39 — Status of authorised economic operator — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 — The second subparagraph of Article 24(1) — Applicant not a natural person — Questionnaire — Collection of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Articles 6 and 7 — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Articles 5 and 6 — Processing of personal data)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/14

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deutsche Post AG v Hauptzollamt Köln
      (Case C-496/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - The Union Customs Code - Article 39 - Status of authorised economic operator - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 - The second subparagraph of Article 24(1) - Applicant not a natural person - Questionnaire - Collection of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Articles 6 and 7 - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Articles 5 and 6 - Processing of personal data))
      (2019/C 93/18)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Deutsche Post AG

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln

         Operative part of the judgment

      The second subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code, read in the light of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities may require an applicant for AEO status to send to them the tax identification numbers, allocated for the purposes of collecting income tax, concerning solely the natural persons who are in charge of the applicant or who exercise control over its management and those who are in charge of the applicant’s customs matters, and the details of the tax offices responsible for the taxation of all those persons, to the extent that that data enables those authorities to obtain information on serious or repeated infringements of customs legislation or taxation rules or on serious criminal offences, committed by those natural persons and relating to their economic activity.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case C-639/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, acting as insolvency administrator of AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’ v SIA ‘Ķipars AI’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems — Directive 98/26/EC — Scope — Concept of ‘transfer order’ — Payment order sent by the holder of an ordinary current account to a credit institution subsequently declared insolvent)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/15

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, acting as insolvency administrator of AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’ v SIA ‘Ķipars AI’
      (Case C-639/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems - Directive 98/26/EC - Scope - Concept of ‘transfer order’ - Payment order sent by the holder of an ordinary current account to a credit institution subsequently declared insolvent))
      (2019/C 93/19)
      Language of the case: Latvian

         Referring court

      Augstākā tiesa

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, acting as insolvency administrator of AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’

         Respondent: SIA ‘Ķipars AI’

         Operative part of the judgment

      A payment order, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, given by the holder of an ordinary current account to a credit institution for a transfer of funds to another credit institution is not covered by the concept of ‘transfer order’, within the meaning of Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems, as amended by Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, and does not, therefore, come within the scope of that directive.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case C-698/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 January 2019 — Toni Klement v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 15(1) — Application for revocation of a mark — Three-dimensional mark representing the form of an oven — Genuine use of the mark — Statement of reasons)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/17

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 January 2019 — Toni Klement v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      (Case C-698/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 15(1) - Application for revocation of a mark - Three-dimensional mark representing the form of an oven - Genuine use of the mark - Statement of reasons))
      (2019/C 93/21)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Toni Klement (represented by: J. Weiser, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Hanf, D. Botis and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Toni Klement to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case C-74/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/138/EC — Taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance — Article 13(13) — Definition of ‘Member State in which the risk is situated’ — Company established in one Member State, providing insurance services relating to contractual risks connected with company conversions in another Member State — Article 157 — Member State levying tax on insurance premiums)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/17

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A Ltd
      (Case C-74/18) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/138/EC - Taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance - Article 13(13) - Definition of ‘Member State in which the risk is situated’ - Company established in one Member State, providing insurance services relating to contractual risks connected with company conversions in another Member State - Article 157 - Member State levying tax on insurance premiums))
      (2019/C 93/22)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein hallinto-oikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

      A Ltd

         Intervener: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

         Operative part of the judgment

      The first subparagraph of Article 157(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), as amended by Directive 2013/58/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013, read in conjunction with Article 13(13) of Directive 2009/138, must be interpreted as meaning that, when an insurance company established in a Member State offers insurance covering the contractual risks associated with the value of the shares and the fairness of the purchase price paid by the buyer in the acquisition of an undertaking, an insurance contract concluded in that context is subject exclusively to the indirect taxes and parafiscal charges on insurance premiums in the Member State where the policyholder is established.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Case C-551/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against IK (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence — Substance and form — Article 8(1)(f) — Failure to refer to an additional sentence — Validity — Consequences — Effect on detention)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/18

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against IK
      (Case C-551/18 PPU) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence - Substance and form - Article 8(1)(f) - Failure to refer to an additional sentence - Validity - Consequences - Effect on detention))
      (2019/C 93/24)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hof van Cassatie

         Party to the main proceedings

      IK

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 8(1)(f) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that failure to indicate, in the European arrest warrant pursuant to which the person concerned has been surrendered, an additional sentence of conditional release which was imposed on that person for the same offence in the same judicial decision as that relating to the main custodial sentence does not, on the facts of the case in the main proceedings, preclude the enforcement of that additional sentence, on the expiry of the main sentence after an express decision to that effect is taken by the national court with jurisdiction for the enforcement of sentences, from resulting in deprivation of liberty.

         (1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.


title: Case C-292/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kassel Zweigstelle Hofgeismar (Germany) lodged on 27 April 2018 — Petra Breyer, Heiko Breyer v SUNDAIR GmbH

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kassel Zweigstelle Hofgeismar (Germany) lodged on 27 April 2018 — Petra Breyer, Heiko Breyer v SUNDAIR GmbH
      (Case C-292/18)
      (2019/C 93/25)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Kassel Zweigstelle Hofgeismar

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Petra Breyer, Heiko Breyer

         Defendant: Sundair GmbH
      By order of 6 December 2018, the Court ruled:
      Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read in conjunction with Article 2(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which had lodged an application for an operating licence which was not issued to it at the time for the performance of scheduled flights cannot fall within the scope of that regulation, so that the passengers concerned have no right to compensation under Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of the regulation.


title: Case C-308/18 P: Appeal brought on 7 May 2018 by Schniga GmbH against the judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2018 in Case T-445/16, Schniga GmbH v Gemeinschaftliches Sortenamt (CPVO)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/19

      Appeal brought on 7 May 2018 by Schniga GmbH against the judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2018 in Case T-445/16, Schniga GmbH v Gemeinschaftliches Sortenamt (CPVO)
      (Case C-308/18 P)
      (2019/C 93/26)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Schniga GmbH (represented by: G. Würtenberger, R. Kunze und T. Wittmann, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: Gemeinschaftliches Sortenamt (CPVO)
      By decision of 8 November 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as unfounded and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.


title: Case C-444/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 6 July 2018 — Fluctus s.r.o. and Others

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 6 July 2018 — Fluctus s.r.o. and Others
      (Case C-444/18)
      (2019/C 93/27)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Fluctus s.r.o., Fluentum s.r.o., SD

         Respondent authority: Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark

         Other party: Finanzpolizei
      By order of 9 January 2019 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held as follows:
      The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Regional Administrative Court, Styria) (Austria) by decision of 2 July 2018 is manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case C-553/18 P: Appeal brought on 29 August 2018 by Lion's Head Global Partners LLP against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2018 in Case T-294/17: Lion's Head Global Partners LLP v EUIPO

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/20

      Appeal brought on 29 August 2018 by Lion's Head Global Partners LLP against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2018 in Case T-294/17: Lion's Head Global Partners LLP v EUIPO
      (Case C-553/18 P)
      (2019/C 93/29)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Lion's Head Global Partners LLP (represented by: R. Nöske, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
      By order of 15 January 2019 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-554/18 P: Appeal brought on 29 August 2018 by Lion's Head Global Partners LLP against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2018 in Case T-310/17: Lion's Head Global Partners LLP v EUIPO

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/21

      Appeal brought on 29 August 2018 by Lion's Head Global Partners LLP against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2018 in Case T-310/17: Lion's Head Global Partners LLP v EUIPO
      (Case C-554/18 P)
      (2019/C 93/30)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Lion's Head Global Partners LLP (represented by: R. Nöske, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
      By order of 15 January 2019 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-608/18 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by the Republic of Cyprus against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-825/16: Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/21

      Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by the Republic of Cyprus against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-825/16: Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO
      (Case C-608/18 P)
      (2019/C 93/31)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Papouis Dairies Ltd.

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  allow the appeal against the judgment of the General Court in case T-825/16 Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO and grant the application for annulment;

                  —

                  order the Office and intervener to bear their own costs and pay those of the appellant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      First, the General Court erred in considering that the Board of Appeal was correct to transpose the conclusions from the General Court's earlier judgments in in Joined Cases T-292/14 and T-293/14 (XAΛΛOYMI and HALLOUMI) and Case T-534/10 (HELLIM) to the present case. Those cases were not concerned with certification marks but different kinds of marks, namely ordinary EU trade marks and collective marks respectively. The essential function of such marks is to act as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods (a plurality of traders linked by membership of an association in the case of a collective mark). Certification marks, by contrast, do not have the essential function of indicating origin, but of distinguishing a class of goods, namely goods which are certified in that they in fact comply with and have been authorised to be made under the regulations for permitted use of the HALLOUMI certification mark. Moreover the relevant public in those earlier General Court judgments was different to the relevant public in the present case.
      Secondly, the General Court wrongly held that an earlier national mark — the national certification mark in this case — wholly lacked distinctive character as distinguishing goods which are certified from those which were not; wrongly holding the mark to be descriptive and generic; wrongly undermining the national protection of the national mark; and wrongly calling into question in EUIPO opposition proceedings the validity of the said mark.
      Thirdly, the General Court erred in the comparison of the marks and the assessment of the likelihood of confusion. It wrongly approached these questions as if the earlier mark were an origin-indicating trade mark rather than a certification mark. It failed to accord the earlier mark any distinctiveness as a certification mark, i.e. as distinguishing goods which in fact complied with the standards of the certification mark and were in fact made by producers authorised by the certification mark holder. It also failed to consider how certification marks are typically used (i.e. invariably along with a distinctive name, trade mark or logo). It failed to consider the meaning and significance of the contested EUTM, in particular by failing to consider whether the ‘HALLOUMI’ element had an independent distinctive character in the later mark as a sign indicating, contrary to fact, that the goods covered by the contested EUTM were certified.
      Fourthly, the General Court failed to consider national provisions and case law as to the scope and effect of national certification marks. The conditions and modalities of Member States' laws on certification marks were not harmonised under the Trade Marks Directives 89/104 (1) or 2008/95 (2) and yet the EUTMR provides that such national marks can form the basis of earlier rights which prevent registration of EUTMs. Such rights should be considered in the light of national case law and national provisions, by analogy with the various national rights under Article 8(4) EUTMR (which rights are also not harmonised and vary greatly in their nature, scope and effect from Member State to Member State).

         (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989, L 40, p. 1).

         (2)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008, L 299, p. 25).


title: Case C-609/18 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by the Republic of Cyprus against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-847/16: Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/22

      Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by the Republic of Cyprus against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-847/16: Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO
      (Case C-609/18 P)
      (2019/C 93/32)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Pancyprian Organisation of Cattle Farmers (P.O.C.F) Public Ltd.

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  allow the appeal against the judgment of the General Court in case T-847/16 Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO and grant the application for annulment;

                  —

                  order the Office and intervener to bear their own costs and pay those of the appellant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      First, the General Court erred in considering that the Board of Appeal was correct to transpose the conclusions from the General Court's earlier judgments in in Joined Cases T-292/14 and T-293/14 (XAΛΛOYMI and HALLOUMI) and Case T 534/10 (HELLIM) to the present case. Those cases were not concerned with certification marks but different kinds of marks, namely ordinary EU trade marks and collective marks respectively. The essential function of such marks is to act as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods (a plurality of traders linked by membership of an association in the case of a collective mark).Certification marks, by contrast, do not have the essential function of indicating origin, but of distinguishing a class of goods, namely goods which are certified in that they in fact comply with and have been authorised to be made under the regulations for permitted use of the HALLOUMI certification mark. Moreover the relevant public in those earlier General Court judgments was different to the relevant public in the present case.
      Secondly, the General Court wrongly held that an earlier national mark — the national certification mark in this case — wholly lacked distinctive character as distinguishing goods which are certified from those which were not; wrongly holding the mark to be descriptive and generic; wrongly undermining the national protection of the national mark; and wrongly calling into question in EUIPO opposition proceedings the validity of the said mark.
      Thirdly, the General Court erred in the comparison of the marks and the assessment of the likelihood of confusion. It wrongly approached these questions as if the earlier mark were an origin-indicating trade mark rather than a certification mark. It failed to accord the earlier mark any distinctiveness as a certification mark, i.e. as distinguishing goods which in fact complied with the standards of the certification mark and were in fact made by producers authorised by the certification mark holder. It also failed to consider how certification marks are typically used (i.e. invariably along with a distinctive name, trade mark or logo). It failed to consider the meaning and significance of the contested EUTM, in particular by failing to consider whether the ‘HALLOUMI’ element had an independent distinctive character in the later mark as a sign indicating, contrary to fact, that the goods covered by the contested EUTM were certified.
      Fourthly, the General Court failed to consider national provisions and case law as to the scope and effect of national certification marks. The conditions and modalities of Member States' laws on certification marks were not harmonised under the Trade Marks Directives 89/104 (1) or 2008/95 (2) and yet the EUTMR provides that such national marks can form the basis of earlier rights which prevent registration of EUTMs. Such rights should be considered in the light of national case law and national provisions, by analogy with the various national rights under Article 8(4) EUTMR (which rights are also not harmonised and vary greatly in their nature, scope and effect from Member State to Member State).

         (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989, L 40, p. 1).

         (2)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008, L 299, p. 25).


title: Case C-612/18 P: Appeal brought on 25 September 2018 by ClientEarth against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2018 in Case T-644/16: ClientEarth v Commission

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/23

      Appeal brought on 25 September 2018 by ClientEarth against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2018 in Case T-644/16: ClientEarth v Commission
      (Case C-612/18 P)
      (2019/C 93/33)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, advocaat, N. Frey, Solicitor, E. N. M. Raedts, advocaat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 in Case T-644/16 (‘the contested judgment’) and to refer the case back to the General Court for consideration;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      First ground of appeal: errors of law and breaches of procedure in the contested judgment in relation to the argument that the disclosure of the documents cannot weaken the Commission’s negotiation position (contested judgment paragraphs 34-51), by:

                  —

                  widening of the exception to material not specifically related to an envisaged international agreement;

                  —

                  applying the international relations exception without requiring a specific explanation of how disclosure could specifically and actually undermine international relations;

                  —

                  substituting reasoning regarding the legal analysis contained in the requested documents; and

                  —

                  distorting evidence regarding the state of negotiations at the time of the contested decision.

            Second ground of appeal: error of law in the contested judgment relating to the argument that the strategic objectives of the European Union would not be undermined (contested judgment paragraphs 52-53).
      Third ground of appeal: breach of procedure and error of law in the considerations in the contested judgment relating to the argument that disclosure of the requested documents furthers rather than undermines the public interest as regards international relations (contested judgment paragraphs 54-58).
      Fourth ground of appeal: error of law and irregularity of procedure in the considerations in the contested judgment relating to the argument that non-disclosure as long as there are ‘ongoing negotiations’ effectively results in indefinite non-disclosure (contested judgment paragraphs 59-67).
      Fifth ground of appeal: denaturation of arguments brought before the General Court in the considerations in the contested judgment relating to the Commission’s argument that the Regulation does not allow for documents to be disclosed ‘as long as the position of the Court of Justice is not known’ (contested judgment paragraphs 68-69).
      Sixth ground of appeal: breach of procedure in the considerations in the contested judgment relating to the seventh argument that disclosure cannot be made dependent on equal transparency obligations of trade partners (contested judgment paragraphs 72-74).
      Seventh ground of appeal: error of law through breach of Art. 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) when assessing partial access (contested judgment paragraphs 79-90).

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001, L 145, p. 43).


title: Case C-726/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana (Italy) lodged on 22 November 2018 — FW, GY v U.T.G. — Prefettura di Lucca

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/25

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana (Italy) lodged on 22 November 2018 — FW, GY v U.T.G. — Prefettura di Lucca
      (Case C-726/18)
      (2019/C 93/34)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: FW, GY

         Defendant: U.T.G. — Prefettura di Lucca

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does Article 20(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU (1) preclude an interpretation of Article 23 of Legislative Decree No 142/2015 as meaning that conduct that infringes general rules of national law, not specifically reproduced in reception centre rules, may also constitute a serious breach of those rules if it potentially disrupts life within the reception centres?
                  In the event of an affirmative answer, the following further question is referred to, and requires an answer by, the Court:

                  2.

                  Does Article 20(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU preclude an interpretation of Article 23 of Legislative Decree No 142/2015 as meaning that conduct on the part of the applicant for international protection that does not constitute a criminal offence punishable under the laws of the Member State may also be taken into consideration for the purpose of withdrawing reception measures, if that conduct might nevertheless potentially disrupt life within the centre in which the persons concerned are placed?

         (1)  Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96).


title: Case C-729/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2018 by VTB Bank PAO, formerly VTB Bank OAO, against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on13 September 2018 in Case T-734/14: VTB Bank v Council

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/25

      Appeal brought on 23 November 2018 by VTB Bank PAO, formerly VTB Bank OAO, against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on13 September 2018 in Case T-734/14: VTB Bank v Council
      (Case C-729/18 P)
      (2019/C 93/35)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: VTB Bank PAO, formerly VTB Bank OAO (represented by: M. Lester QC, J. Dawid, Barristers, C. Claypoole, Solicitor, J. Ruiz Calzado, abogado)

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

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  allow the appeal of VTB against the decision of the General Court;

                  —

                  order that the restrictive acts be annulled insofar as they apply to VTB;

                  —

                  make a declaration of illegality / inapplicability as regards article 1 of Council decision 2014/512/CFSP (1), article 5 of regulation 833/2014 (2), article 1 of Council decision 2014/659/CFSP (3), and article 1(5) of regulation 960/2014 (4);

                  —

                  order the Council to pay VTB’s costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      First plea in law, alleging:
      The General Court erred in its interpretation of article 5(1)(a) of the regulation in concluding that the condition that an institution have ‘an explicit mandate to promote competitiveness of the Russian economy, its diversification and encouragement of investment’ did not apply to VTB as a ‘major credit institution’. In consequence, the General Court erred in holding that the Council made no manifest error of assessment in finding that VTB satisfied the conditions to be listed under article 5(1)(a) of the regulation.
      Second plea in law, alleging:
      The General Court erred in finding that the criteria under which VTB was listed pursuant to article 1 of the decision and article 5(1)(a) of the regulation were appropriate and proportionate having regard to the objectives of the restrictive acts.
      Third plea in law, alleging:
      The General Court erred in finding that the restrictive acts applied to VTB represented a proportionate interference with VTB’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by article 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and article 1, protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, both in respect of the criteria adopted under the restrictive acts and the decision to list VTB pursuant to those criteria.

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

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

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

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


title: Case C-732/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2018 by PAO Rosneft Oil Company, formerly NK Rosneft OAO, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, AO RN-Shelf-Far East, formerly RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO, RN-Exploration OOO, Tagulskoe OOO against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2018 in Case T-715/14: Rosneft and Others v Council

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/26

      Appeal brought on 23 November 2018 by PAO Rosneft Oil Company, formerly NK Rosneft OAO, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, AO RN-Shelf-Far East, formerly RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO, RN-Exploration OOO, Tagulskoe OOO against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2018 in Case T-715/14: Rosneft and Others v Council
      (Case C-732/18 P)
      (2019/C 93/36)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: PAO Rosneft Oil Company, formerly NK Rosneft OAO, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, AO RN-Shelf-Far East, formerly RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO, RN-Exploration OOO, Tagulskoe OOO (represented by: L. Van den Hende, advocaat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

         Form of order sought

      The appellants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment in so far as it concerns the grounds concerned by this appeal;

                  —

                  give a final judgment in the matter or refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; and

                  —

                  order the Council to pay the costs, including the costs before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The appeal concerns contested non-conventional oil restrictions, contested capital market restrictions and contested legal claims restrictions as contained in Council Regulation No 833/2014 (1) and/or Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP (2).
      The appellants rely on seven pleas:
      First plea: The General Court erred in law when it determined that the Council complied with Article 296 TFEU when adopting the contested non-conventional oil restrictions.
      Second plea: The General Court erred in law when it determined that the Council complied with Article 296 TFEU when adopting the contested capital market restrictions.
      Third plea: The General Court erred in law when it determined that there exists a rational connection between the contested non-conventional oil restrictions and the objective found to be pursued by them.
      Fourth plea: The General Court erred in law when it determined that the contested nonconventional oil restrictions do not infringe the appellants' fundamental rights to property and to conduct a business.
      Fifth plea: The General Court erred in law when it determined that contested legal claims restrictions are not disproportionate and do not otherwise infringe the appellants' fundamental right to property.
      Sixth plea: The General Court erred in law when it determined that the contested capital market restrictions comply with the principle of proportionality and do not infringe the appellants' fundamental right to conduct a business.
      Seventh plea: The General Court erred in law when it determined that the contested nonconventional oil restrictions and contested capital market restrictions are justified by the security exceptions of the EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and WTO General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

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

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


title: Case C-749/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 30 November 2018 –B, C, D v Administration des contributions directes

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/27

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 30 November 2018 –B, C, D v Administration des contributions directes
      (Case C-749/18)
      (2019/C 93/37)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour administrative

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: B, C, D

         Respondent: Administration des contributions directes

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Articles 49 and 54 TFEU be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State relating to a tax integration scheme which, on the one hand, permits consolidation of the results of companies forming part of the same group and allowing vertical tax integration only between a resident parent company or a permanent native establishment of a non-resident parent company and its resident subsidiaries and, on the other hand, similarly precludes the purely horizontal tax integration of the subsidiaries alone of both a non-resident parent company with no permanent native establishment and a resident or non-resident parent company which has a permanent local establishment?

                  2.

                  If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Articles 49 and 54 TFEU be interpreted as precluding the same legislation of a Member State relating to a tax integration scheme, in particular to strict separation between vertical integration schemes (between a group parent company and its direct or indirect subsidiaries) and horizontal integration schemes (between two or more resident subsidiaries of a group parent company which remains outside the tax integration perimeter) stemming from that legislation, and the resulting obligation to end a pre-existing vertical tax integration arrangement before being able to form a horizontal tax integration group, where:

                              —

                              a vertical tax integration arrangement with an integrating group parent company at national level which is resident in the Member State concerned (which, at the same time, represents the intermediate subsidiary in relation to the ultimate parent company, resident in another Member State) and the resident subsidiaries of the group parent company, had previously been established, on account of the fact that the legislation of the Member State concerned allows only vertical tax integration for the purposes of admission to the scheme, notwithstanding the fact that the ultimate parent company is resident in another Member State;

                              —

                              sister companies of the integrating group parent company of the Member State concerned (therefore also subsidiaries of the ultimate parent company resident of another Member State) are denied access to the existing tax integration arrangements on the ground that the two integration schemes, vertical and horizontal, are incompatible; and

                              —

                              the inclusion of the results of those sister companies in the consolidated results of the companies within the group would entail the undoing of the pre-existing vertical tax integration arrangement — with the ensuing negative tax consequences on account of non-compliance with the minimum duration of the integration arrangement required by national law — and the setting up of a new horizontal tax integration arrangement, even though the resident integrating company (at the level at which the results of the fiscally integrated companies are consolidated) remains the same?

                  3.

                  If the answer to the second question is also in the affirmative, must Articles 49 and 54 TFEU, together with the principle of effectiveness of EU law, be interpreted as precluding that same legislation of a Member State relating to a tax integration scheme, in particular the imposition of a time limit under which any request seeking admission to the tax integration scheme must necessarily be submitted to the competent authority before the end of the first tax year for which application of that scheme is sought, where:

                              —

                              if the first two questions are answered in the affirmative, that legislation precluded, in a manner incompatible with freedom of establishment, horizontal tax integration between the subsidiaries alone of the same parent company and the modification of an existing vertically fiscally integrated group by the addition of sister companies of the integrating company;

                              —

                              before the publication of the judgment of the [Court of Justice of the European Union] of 12 June 2014 (Joined Cases C-39/13, C-40/13 and C-41/13), the national administrative and judicial practice of the Member State concerned was to accept that that legislation was valid;

                              —

                              a number of companies submitted, following the publication of the judgment of 12 June 2014 and again before the end of 2014, a request to join an existing fiscally integrated group by being allowed to join a horizontal tax integration arrangement with the integrating company of the existing group, in reliance on the judgment of 12 June 2014; and

                              —

                              that request relates not only to the 2014 tax year still ongoing at the time that the request was submitted, but also to the previous tax year, 2013, as from which the companies concerned satisfied all the substantive conditions compatible with EU law for admission to the tax integration scheme?


title: Case C-750/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 3 December 2018 — A, B v C

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/29

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 3 December 2018 — A, B v C
      (Case C-750/18)
      (2019/C 93/38)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Amsterdam

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: A, B

         Defendant: C

         Question referred

      How should Directive 93/13, (1) and, more specifically, the principle of cumulative effect contained in it, be interpreted when assessing whether the sum which a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations is required to pay in compensation (hereinafter: the penalty clause) is disproportionately high within the meaning of point 1(e) of the annex to that directive, in a case in which penalty clauses are associated with a variety of shortcomings of different types which, by their very nature, do not have to occur jointly, and indeed do not do so in the present case?

         (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case C-758/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 30 November 2018 — Bulgarian Air Charter Limited v NE

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/29

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 30 November 2018 — Bulgarian Air Charter Limited v NE
      (Case C-758/18)
      (2019/C 93/39)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesgericht Korneuburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Bulgarian Air Charter Limited

         Respondent: NE

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Are Articles 5(3) and 7 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) to be interpreted as meaning that an operating air carrier which asserts the existence of extraordinary circumstances as the cause of a long delay may rely on the ground for exemption from liability under Article 5(3) of the Flight Compensation Regulation only if it can also assert and demonstrate that the delay suffered by the individual passenger could also not have been prevented by re-booking onto alternative transport?

                  2.

                  Must a re-booking required under Question 1 meet more specific temporal or qualitative criteria, in particular the criteria set out in Article 5(1)(c)(iii) or in Article 8(1)(b) and (c) of the Flight Compensation Regulation?

         (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-796/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 December 2018 — Informatikgesellschaft für Software-Entwicklung (ISE) mbH v Stadt Köln

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/30

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 December 2018 — Informatikgesellschaft für Software-Entwicklung (ISE) mbH v Stadt Köln
      (Case C-796/18)
      (2019/C 93/40)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Informatikgesellschaft für Software-Entwicklung (ISE) mbH

         Defendant: Stadt Köln

         Party to the proceedings: Land Berlin

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does the provision of software by one public administrative authority to another public administrative authority, which is agreed in writing and linked to a cooperation agreement, constitute a ‘public contract’ within the meaning of Article 2.1(5) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) or a contract within the meaning of Article 12(4) of that directive which — at least initially, subject to Article 12(4)(a) to (c) thereof — comes within the scope of the directive if, although the software recipient does not have to pay a price or reimbursement costs for the software, the cooperation agreement connected with the provision of the software provides that each cooperation partner — and therefore also the software recipient — is required to make available to the other partner, free of charge, any of its own further developments of the software that it may create — but is not obliged to create — in the future?

            Only if Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

                  2.

                  Pursuant to Article 12(4)(a) of Directive 2014/24/EU, does the subject matter of the cooperation of the participating contracting authorities have to be the actual public services that are to be provided to citizens and must be provided jointly, or is it sufficient if the cooperation relates to activities that in some way serve the public services that are to be provided in the same way but do not necessarily have to be provided jointly?

                  3.

                  Does a so-called — unwritten — prohibition on placing a party in a position of advantage (‘Besserstellungsverbot’) apply in the context of Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU and, if so, with what content does it apply?

         (1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


title: Case C-813/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by Deza, a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 October 2018 in Case T-400/17 Deza v Commission

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/31

      Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by Deza, a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 October 2018 in Case T-400/17 Deza v Commission
      (Case C-813/18 P)
      (2019/C 93/41)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Appellant: Deza, a.s. (represented by: P. Dejl, advokát)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden, European Chemicals Agency

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 in Case T-400/17;

                  —

                  annul in part Commission Regulation (EU) No 2017/776 (1) of 4 May 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008, in so far as it concerns the classification and labelling of the substance anthraquinone;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs incurred in the present appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice and in the previous proceedings before the General Court.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward four grounds of appeal.

                  1.

                  The General Court interpreted and applied the CLP Regulation (2) incorrectly, in particular the following basic principles: (i) the substance evaluated and classified must be placed on the EU market; (ii) a causal link between a substance and carcinogenic effects in test animals must be demonstrated by sufficient evidence; (iii) sufficient evidence must be obtained from reliable and admissible scientific studies; and (iv) classification of a substance must take account of new scientific and technical knowledge and scientific and technical progress.

                  2.

                  The General Court reviewed the classification of anthraquinone, in other words part of the Commission Regulation, in a manner contrary to the requirements for judicial review of decisions of the EU institutions and bodies, and distorted the facts and evidence.

                  3.

                  The General Court interpreted and applied the principle of legal certainty incorrectly.

                  4.

                  As a result of the above defects, the General Court breached the appellant’s rights and the principles laid down in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to a fair hearing, the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property, and the principle of legal certainty.

         (1)  OJ 2017 L 116, p. 1.

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ 2008 L 353, p. 1).


title: Joined Cases C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2019 — International Management Group v European Commission (Appeal — Development cooperation — EU budget implementation by indirect management — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Challengeable acts — Decision to entrust a budget implementation task to an entity other than the entity initially chosen — Decision not to entrust any new budget implementation tasks to the entity initially chosen — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 — Article 43 — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 — Article 43 — Definition of ‘international organisation’ — Conditions — Claim for damages)

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/2

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2019 — International Management Group v European Commission
      (Joined Cases C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Development cooperation - EU budget implementation by indirect management - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Challengeable acts - Decision to entrust a budget implementation task to an entity other than the entity initially chosen - Decision not to entrust any new budget implementation tasks to the entity initially chosen - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 - Article 43 - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 - Article 43 - Definition of ‘international organisation’ - Conditions - Claim for damages))
      (2019/C 112/02)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: International Management Group (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, avocats)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 2 February 2017, International Management Group v Commission (T-29/15, not published, EU:T:2017:56), and of 2 February 2017, International Management Group v Commission (T-381/15, not published, EU:T:2017:57);

                  2.

                  Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 9787 final of 16 December 2014 amending Implementing Decision C(2013) 7682 on the Annual Action Programme 2013 in favour of Myanmar/Burma to be financed from the general budget of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Annuls the decision of the European Commission not to conclude any new delegation agreements for indirect management with International Management Group, contained in its letter of 8 May 2015;

                  4.

                  Refers Case T-381/15 back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the claim for damages submitted by International Management Group in respect of the harm allegedly caused to that entity by the decision of the Commission referred to in paragraph 3 of the operative part of this judgment;

                  5.

                  Dismisses the cross-appeals;

                  6.

                  Orders the Commission to pay the costs in Cases C-183/17 P, C-184/17 P and T-29/15, and

                  7.

                  Reserves the costs in Case T-381/15.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


title: Case C-194/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2019 — Georgios Pandalis v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 51(1)(a) and (2) and Article 75 — EU trade mark Cystus — Food supplements not for medical purposes — Partial revocation — Lack of genuine use of the trade mark — Perception of the word ‘cystus’ as a descriptive indication of the main ingredient of the goods concerned — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/3

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2019 — Georgios Pandalis v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH
      (Case C-194/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) and Article 75 - EU trade mark Cystus - Food supplements not for medical purposes - Partial revocation - Lack of genuine use of the trade mark - Perception of the word ‘cystus’ as a descriptive indication of the main ingredient of the goods concerned - Obligation to state reasons))
      (2019/C 112/03)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Georgios Pandalis (represented by: A. Franke, Rechtsanwältin)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents), LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, Rechtsanwälte)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Georgios Pandalis to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.