title: Case C-320/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Marle Participations SARL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2, 9 and 168 — Economic activity — Direct or indirect involvement of a holding company in the management of its subsidiaries — Letting of a building by a holding company to its subsidiary — Deduction of input tax — VAT paid by a holding company on expenditure incurred in acquiring shares in other companies)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/8

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Marle Participations SARL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
      (Case C-320/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2, 9 and 168 - Economic activity - Direct or indirect involvement of a holding company in the management of its subsidiaries - Letting of a building by a holding company to its subsidiary - Deduction of input tax - VAT paid by a holding company on expenditure incurred in acquiring shares in other companies))
      (2018/C 301/10)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Marle Participations SARL

         Respondent: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the letting of a building by a holding company to its subsidiary amounts to ‘involvement in the management’ of that subsidiary, which must be considered to be an economic activity, within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive, giving rise to the right to deduct the value added tax (VAT) on the expenditure incurred by the company for the purpose of acquiring shares in that subsidiary, where that supply of services is made on a continuing basis, is carried out for consideration and is taxed, meaning that the letting is not exempt, and there is a direct link between the service rendered by the supplier and the consideration received from the beneficiary. Expenditure connected with the acquisition of shareholdings in subsidiaries incurred by a holding company which involves itself in the subsidiaries’ management by letting them a building and which, on that basis, carries out an economic activity has to be regarded as belonging to its general expenditure and the VAT paid on that expenditure must, in principle, be capable of being deducted in full.

                  2.

                  Expenditure connected with the acquisition of shareholdings in subsidiaries incurred by a holding company which involves itself in the management of only some of those subsidiaries and which, with regard to the others, does not, by contrast, carry out an economic activity must be regarded as only partially belonging to its general expenditure, so that the VAT paid on that expenditure may be deducted only in proportion to the expenditure which is inherent in the economic activity, in accordance with the apportionment criteria defined by the Member States, which, when exercising that power, must have regard to the aims and broad logic of that directive and, on that basis, provide for a method of calculation which objectively reflects the part of the input expenditure actually to be attributed, respectively, to economic and to non-economic activity, which it is for the national courts to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case C-390/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juge d’instruction du tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 13 June 2018 — Criminal proceedings against YA and AIRBNB Ireland UC — other parties: Hotelière Turenne SAS, Pour un hébergement et tourisme professionnel (AHTOP), Valhotel

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/15

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juge d’instruction du tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 13 June 2018 — Criminal proceedings against YA and AIRBNB Ireland UC — other parties: Hotelière Turenne SAS, Pour un hébergement et tourisme professionnel (AHTOP), Valhotel
      (Case C-390/18)
      (2018/C 301/20)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Juge d’instruction du tribunal de grande instance de Paris

         Parties to the main proceedings

      YA and AIRBNB Ireland UC

         Other parties: Hotelière Turenne SAS, Pour un hébergement et tourisme professionnel (AHTOP), Valhotel

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do the services provided in France by the company Airbnb Ireland UC via an electronic platform managed from Ireland benefit from the freedom to provide services contemplated in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000? (1)

                  2.

                  Are the restrictive rules relating to the exercise of the profession of real estate agent in France, laid down by Law No 70-9 of 2 January 1970 on intermediaries in real-estate transactions (‘the Hoguet Law’), enforceable against the company Airbnb Ireland UC?

         (1)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).


title: Case T-784/17 RII: Order of the President of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Public works contracts — Order granting suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s tender and awarding five tenderers a framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels — Application for variation — Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/36

      Order of the President of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament
      (Case T-784/17 RII)
      ((Application for interim measures - Public works contracts - Order granting suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s tender and awarding five tenderers a framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels - Application for variation - Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure - Inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 301/48)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Anvers, Belgium) (represented by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Application under Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court for variation of the order of 18 January 2018, Strabag Belgium v Parliament (T-784/17 R, not published, under appeal, EU:T:2018:17).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for variation of the order of 18 January 2018, Strabag Belgium v Parliament (T-784/17 R, not published, under appeal, EU:T:2018:17) is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-742/17: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — Kim and Others v Council

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/47

      Order of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — Kim and Others v Council
      (Case T-742/17) (1)

      (2018/C 301/62)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.


title: Case C-394/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di appello di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 14 June 2018 — I.G.I. Srl v Maria Grazia Cicenia and Others

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/15

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di appello di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 14 June 2018 — I.G.I. Srl v Maria Grazia Cicenia and Others
      (Case C-394/18)
      (2018/C 301/21)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte di appello di Napoli

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: I.G.I. Srl

         Respondents: Maria Grazia Cicenia, Mario Di Pierro, Salvatore de Vito, Antonio Raffaele

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Can the creditors of the company being divided, whose credit interests antedate the division, who have not taken advantage of the remedy of lodging an objection under Article 2503 of the Civil Code (and therefore of the protection tool introduced in implementation of Article 12 of [Directive 82/891/EEC]), (1) use an action to set aside under Article 2901 of the Civil Code after the division has been implemented, in order to obtain a declaration that the division in question has no effect against them and, therefore, to take precedence in enforcement over the creditors of the recipient company or companies and to be placed in a preferential position before the shareholders of those companies?

                  2.

                  Does the notion of nullity, provided for by Article 19 of the directive, refer only to actions affecting the validity of the instrument of division or also to actions which, despite not affecting its validity, result in its relative lack of effect or unenforceability?

         (1)  Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty, concerning the division of public limited liability companies (OJ 1982 L 378, p. 47).


title: Case C-339/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Verein für lauteren Wettbewerb eV v Princesport GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Textile fibre names and related labelling and marking requirements — Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 — Articles 7 and 9 — Pure textile products — Multi-fibre textile products — Labelling or marking methods)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/9

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Verein für lauteren Wettbewerb eV v Princesport GmbH
      (Case C-339/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Textile fibre names and related labelling and marking requirements - Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 - Articles 7 and 9 - Pure textile products - Multi-fibre textile products - Labelling or marking methods))
      (2018/C 301/11)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landgericht Köln

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Verein für lauteren Wettbewerb eV

         Defendant: Princesport GmbH

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 4 and the first subparagraph of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products and repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with recital 10 of that regulation, must be interpreted to the effect that they impose a general labelling or marking obligation in order to give an indication of the fibre composition of all textile products, including those textile products defined in Article 7 of that regulation.

                  2.

                  Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1007/2011 must be interpreted to the effect that it does not impose a requirement to use, on the label or marking of a pure textile product, one of the three terms referred to in that provision, that is to say, ‘100 %’, ‘pure’ or ‘all’. When those terms are used, they may be used jointly.

                  3.

                  Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1007/2011 must be interpreted to the effect that the obligation to indicate, on the label or marking, the name and percentage by weight of all the constituent fibres of the textile product in question does not apply to pure textile products.

         (1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.


title: Case C-60/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Ángel Somoza Hermo, Ilunión Seguridad SA v Esabe Vigilancia SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 1(1) — Transfer of an undertaking — Article 3(1) — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Taking over of employment contracts in accordance with the terms of a collective agreement — Collective agreement excluding the obligation, for the transferor and transferee of the undertaking, to assume joint and several liability in respect of the obligations, including those relating to wages, which arose from employment contracts before that undertaking was transferred)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/8

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Ángel Somoza Hermo, Ilunión Seguridad SA v Esabe Vigilancia SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)
      (Case C-60/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 1(1) - Transfer of an undertaking - Article 3(1) - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Taking over of employment contracts in accordance with the terms of a collective agreement - Collective agreement excluding the obligation, for the transferor and transferee of the undertaking, to assume joint and several liability in respect of the obligations, including those relating to wages, which arose from employment contracts before that undertaking was transferred))
      (2018/C 319/08)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Ángel Somoza Hermo, Ilunión Seguridad SA

         Defendants: Esabe Vigilancia SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, must be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a situation in which a contracting entity has terminated the contract for the provision of services relating to the security of buildings concluded with one undertaking and has, for the purposes of the provision of those services, concluded a new contract with another undertaking, which takes on, pursuant to a collective agreement, the majority, in terms of their number and skills, of the staff whom the first undertaking had assigned to the performance of those services, in so far as the operation is accompanied by the transfer of an economic entity between the two undertakings concerned.

                  2.

                  The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the second question referred by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (High Court of Justice of Galicia, Spain), by decision of 30 December 2016.

         (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case C-147/18: Order of the President of the Court of 22 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Almería — Spain) — Banco Mare Nostrum S.A. v Ignacio Jesús Berenguel Nieto, Carmen Sonia Salinas López

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/12

      Order of the President of the Court of 22 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Almería — Spain) — Banco Mare Nostrum S.A. v Ignacio Jesús Berenguel Nieto, Carmen Sonia Salinas López
      (Case C-147/18) (1)

      (2018/C 341/21)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.


title: Case T-467/18: Action brought on 30 July 2018 — Audimas v EUIPO — Audi (AUDIMAS)

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/26

      Action brought on 30 July 2018 — Audimas v EUIPO — Audi (AUDIMAS)
      (Case T-467/18)
      (2018/C 341/37)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Lithuanian

         Parties

         Applicant: Audimas AB (Kaunas, Lithuania) (represented by: G. Domkutė-Lukauskienė, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Audi AG (Ingolstadt, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Figurative trade mark AUDIMAS, which is the subject of an international registration designating the European Union — International registration designating the European Union No 1 251 000

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2018 in Case R 2425/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and maintain registration No 1 251 000 of the applicant’s trade mark ‘AUDIMAS’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 of the Nice Classification;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal (if that party should intervene in the present proceedings) to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

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


title: Case T-417/18: Action brought on 6 July 2018 — CdT v EUIPO

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/17

      Action brought on 6 July 2018 — CdT v EUIPO
      (Case T-417/18)
      (2018/C 341/29)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: J. Rikkert and M. Garnier, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul EUIPO’s decision of 26 April 2018 to terminate the arrangement concluded with the CdT;

                  —

                  annul EUIPO’s decision of 26 April 2018 claiming the right to implement all the preliminary measures necessary to ensure the continuity of provision of the translation services which it requires, in particular by issuing calls for tenders;

                  —

                  annul EUIPO’s decision to issue a call for tenders for translation services, published in the Official Journal under reference 2018/S 114-258472, and excluding the CdT from signing any contracts in connection with that call for tenders;

                  —

                  declare it unlawful for an agency or any other body or office of the EU whose founding regulation provides that the translation services which it requires are to be provided by the CdT to issue a call for tenders for translation services;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with procedure. The applicant claims, first, that, in the event of difficulties between the CdT and its clients, Article 11 of the founding regulation of the CdT is applicable, and secondly, that EUIPO’s decision of 26 April 2018 claiming the right to implement all the preliminary measures necessary to ensure the continuity of provision of the translation services which it requires infringes Article 11 of that founding regulation by failing to comply with the mediation procedure provide for by that article in the event of difficulties between the two agencies concerned.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging lack of foresight on the part of EUIPO. In that regard, the applicant claims that:

                              —

                              first, the situation that EUIPO has created as a result of the actions complained of infringes Article 148 of the founding regulation of EUIPO and Article 2 of the Founding Regulation of the CdT, in that it could lead to the absence of a valid arrangement as of 1 January 2019;

                              —

                              secondly, Article 2 of the founding regulation of the CdT lists the different types of clients of the CdT and Article 2(1) expressly names seven agencies, bodies and offices, including EUIPO, for which the CdT is to provide the translation services necessary for their operation. In addition, Article 2(3) states that institutions and bodies which have their own translation service may, on a voluntary basis, make use of the CdT’s services;

                              —

                              thirdly, it follows from a combined reading of Articles 2(1) and 2(3) of the founding regulation of the CdT that the agencies listed in Article 2(1) are not entitled to decide, on a voluntary basis, whether or not to make use of the CdT’s services, and consequently may decide to terminate an arrangement concluded with the CdT only where another such arrangement is subsequently to enter into force.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging lack of competence on the part of EUIPO to issue a call for tenders for translation services. Without prejudging the results of the evaluation of the call for tenders in question, the applicant notes that, on account of its decision to issue that call for tenders, EUIPO has created a situation in which it cannot comply with Articles 148 and 2 of the founding regulations of EUIPO and of the CdT respectively. Lastly, the applicant submits that, in the present case, the signing of contracts and the purchase of translation services would constitute a manifest infringement of the aforementioned Article 148 and, consequently, more specifically, EUIPO is not lawfully entitled to complete the process initiated by the call for tenders, which would involve the signing of contracts.


title: Case C-707/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Svilengrad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Daniela Pinzaru, Robert-Andrei Cirstinoiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Control of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Failure to comply with the obligation to declare — Penalties laid down by national law — Confiscation by the State of the undeclared sum — Custodial sentence — Fine in the amount of twice the undeclared sum — Proportionality)

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/2

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Svilengrad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Daniela Pinzaru, Robert-Andrei Cirstinoiu
      (Case C-707/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Control of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Failure to comply with the obligation to declare - Penalties laid down by national law - Confiscation by the State of the undeclared sum - Custodial sentence - Fine in the amount of twice the undeclared sum - Proportionality))
      (2018/C 341/02)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Rayonen sad Svilengrad

         Parties to the criminal proceedings in the main proceedings

      Daniela Pinzaru, Robert-Andrei Cirstinoiu

         Operative part of the order

      Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, as a penalty for failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in Article 3 of that regulation, imposes, first, confiscation by the State of the undeclared sum and, second, a custodial sentence of up to six years or a fine in the amount of twice the undeclared sum.

         (1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.


title: Case C-419/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy Pragi-Południe w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 26 June 2018 — Profi Credit Polska S.A., whose seat is in Bielsko-Biała, v Bogumiła Włostowska, Mariusz Kurpiewski, Kamil Wójcik, Michał Konarzewski, Elżbieta Kondracka-Kłębecka, Monika Karwowska, Stanisław Kowalski, Anna Trusik, Adam Lizoń, Włodzimierz Lisowski

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/3

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy Pragi-Południe w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 26 June 2018 — Profi Credit Polska S.A., whose seat is in Bielsko-Biała, v Bogumiła Włostowska, Mariusz Kurpiewski, Kamil Wójcik, Michał Konarzewski, Elżbieta Kondracka-Kłębecka, Monika Karwowska, Stanisław Kowalski, Anna Trusik, Adam Lizoń, Włodzimierz Lisowski
      (Case C-419/18)
      (2018/C 427/04)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy Pragi-Południe w Warszawie

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Profi Credit Polska S.A., whose seat is in Bielsko-Biała

         Defendants: Bogumiła Włostowska, Mariusz Kurpiewski, Kamil Wójcik, Michał Konarzewski, Elżbieta Kondracka-Kłębecka, Monika Karwowska, Stanisław Kowalski, Anna Trusik, Adam Lizoń, Włodzimierz Lisowski

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do Article 3(1), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) and Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (2) including, in particular, Article 10, Article 14, Article 17(1) and Article 19, preclude a provision of national law which allows a claim of a creditor who is a seller or supplier against a borrower who is a consumer to be secured by a blank promissory note?

                  2.

                  Should Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as imposing on the court hearing the case in proceedings referred to in the first question an obligation to examine of its own motion whether the provisions of the contract that creates the basic legal relationship underlying the promissory note obligation do not contain unfair contractual terms, even where the seller or supplier who is the applicant bases his claim exclusively on the legal relationship created by the promissory note?

         (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

         (2)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.


title: Case T-633/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Sárossy v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the procedure EU Pilot No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353 — Refusal to grant access — Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations — General presumption of confidentiality — Overriding public interest)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/60

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Sárossy v Commission
      (Case T-633/17) (1)

      (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the procedure EU Pilot No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353 - Refusal to grant access - Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations - General presumption of confidentiality - Overriding public interest)
      (2018/C 427/79)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Róbert Sárossy (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, G. Koós and M. Tátrai, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 12 June and 17 July 2017 refusing to grant the applicant access to the documents relating to the procedure EU Pilot No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Róbert Sárossy to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.


title: Case C-583/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 20 September 2018 — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV v DB Vertrieb GmbH

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 20 September 2018 — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV v DB Vertrieb GmbH
      (Case C-583/18)
      (2018/C 455/30)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV

         Defendant: DB Vertrieb GmbH

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 2(6) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights (1) to be interpreted to mean that it also covers contracts by means of which the trader is not directly obliged to supply a service, but rather the consumer acquires the right to receive a discount for services ordered in the future?
                  If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

                  2.

                  Is the exception for ‘contracts … for passenger transport services’ in Article 3(3)(k) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights to be interpreted to mean that it also applies to situations in which the consumer does not directly receive a passenger transport service as consideration, but rather acquires the right to receive a discount for contracts for transport services to be concluded in the future?

         (1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).


title: Case C-657/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 19 October 2018 — Hrvatska radiotelevizija v TY

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/17

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 19 October 2018 — Hrvatska radiotelevizija v TY

      (Case C-657/18)
      (2019/C 4/23)
      Language of the case: Croatian

         Referring court

      Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Hrvatska radiotelevizija

         Defendant: TY

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 1 of the Ovršni zakon (Law on enforcement, published in Narodne novine No 112/12, 25/13, 93/14, 55/16 and 73/17), a provision of national legislation which empowers notaries to enforce debts on the basis of an authentic document by issuing an enforcement order, such as a writ of execution, without the express consent of the debtor against whom enforcement is sought, in accordance with Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, having regard to the judgments of the Court in Cases C-484/15 and C-551/15?

                  2.

                  Should the interpretation given in the judgments of the Court of 9 March 2017, Zulfikarpašić (C-484/15, EU:C:2017:199) and Pula Parking (C-551/15, EU:C:2017:193) be applied in the present case, Povrv-2032/17, which the referring court must hear and determine?


title: Case T-29/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — RQ v Commission (Civil service – Officials – Director-General of OLAF – Decision waiving the applicant’s immunity from legal proceedings – Lis pendens – Act adversely affecting a person – Obligation to state reasons – Duty of assistance and duty to have regard to the welfare of officials – Legitimate expectations – Rights of the defence)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/25

      Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — RQ v Commission
      (Case T-29/17) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Director-General of OLAF - Decision waiving the applicant’s immunity from legal proceedings - Lis pendens - Act adversely affecting a person - Obligation to state reasons - Duty of assistance and duty to have regard to the welfare of officials - Legitimate expectations - Rights of the defence)
      (2019/C 4/34)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: RQ (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, J.-P. Keppenne and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 1449 final of 2 March 2016 concerning a request to waive the applicant’s immunity from legal proceedings and, so far as necessary, of Commission Decision Ares(2016) 5814495 of 5 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the first decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 1449 final of 2 March 2016 concerning a request to waive RQ’s immunity from legal proceedings;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.


title: Case C-124/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern — Germany) — Vossloh Laeis GmbH v Stadtwerke München GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 57 – Directive 2014/25/EU – Article 80 – Public procurement – Procedure – Exclusion grounds – Maximum duration of the exclusion period – Obligation for the economic operator to collaborate with the contracting authority in order to demonstrate its reliability)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/2

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern — Germany) — Vossloh Laeis GmbH v Stadtwerke München GmbH
      (Case C-124/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 57 - Directive 2014/25/EU - Article 80 - Public procurement - Procedure - Exclusion grounds - Maximum duration of the exclusion period - Obligation for the economic operator to collaborate with the contracting authority in order to demonstrate its reliability)
      (2019/C 4/02)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Vergabekammer Südbayern

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Vossloh Laeis GmbH

         Defendant: Stadtwerke München GmbH

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 80 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC, read in conjunction with Article 57(6) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which requires an economic operator wishing to demonstrate its reliability despite the existence of a relevant ground for exclusion to clarify the facts and circumstances relating to the criminal offence or the misconduct committed in a comprehensive manner by actively cooperating not only with the investigating authority, but also with the contracting authority, in the context of the latter’s specific role, in order to provide it with proof of the re-establishment of its reliability, to the extent that that cooperation is limited to the measures strictly necessary for that examination.

                  2.

                  Article 57(7) of Directive 2014/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, where an economic operator has been engaged in conduct falling within the ground for exclusion referred to in Article 57(4)(d) of that directive, which has been penalised by a competent authority, the maximum period of exclusion is calculated from the date of the decision of that authority.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.


title: Case T-122/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo (DEVIN) (EU trade mark – Cancellation proceeding – European Union word mark DEVIN – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Geographical name – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo (DEVIN)
      (Case T-122/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Cancellation proceeding - European Union word mark DEVIN - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Geographical name - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 4/35)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Devin AD (Devin, Bulgaria) (represented by: B. Van Asbroeck, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Di Natale and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Haskovo, Bulgaria)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2016 (Case R 579/2016-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Devin AD and Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2016 (Case R 579/2016-2);

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Devin AD;

                  4.

                  Orders Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case C-595/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL v MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 23 – Jurisdiction clause in a distribution contract – Action for damages by the distributor based on the infringement of Article 102 TFEU by the supplier)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/9

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL v MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com
      (Case C-595/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 23 - Jurisdiction clause in a distribution contract - Action for damages by the distributor based on the infringement of Article 102 TFEU by the supplier)
      (2019/C 4/12)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de cassation

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL

         Defendants: MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 23 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the application, in the context of an action for damages brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU, of a jurisdiction clause within the contract binding the parties is not excluded on the sole ground that that clause does not expressly refer to disputes relating to liability incurred as a result of an infringement of competition law.

                  2.

                  Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not a prerequisite for the application of a jurisdiction clause, in the context of an action for damages brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU, that there be a finding of an infringement of competition law by a national or European authority.

         (1)  OJ C 437,18.12.2017.


title: Case C-234/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — XC, YB, ZA (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Principles of EU law – Sincere cooperation – Procedural autonomy – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness – National legislation laying down a remedy allowing criminal proceedings to be reheard in the event of infringement of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – No obligation to extend that procedure to cases of alleged infringement of the fundamental rights enshrined in EU law)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/3

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — XC, YB, ZA
      (Case C-234/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of EU law - Sincere cooperation - Procedural autonomy - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - National legislation laying down a remedy allowing criminal proceedings to be reheard in the event of infringement of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - No obligation to extend that procedure to cases of alleged infringement of the fundamental rights enshrined in EU law)
      (2019/C 4/03)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: XC, YB, ZA

         Intervener: Generalprokuratur

         Operative part of the judgment

      EU law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court is not required to extend to infringements of EU law, in particular to infringements of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed at Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990 and which entered into force on 26 March 1995, a remedy under national law permitting, only in the event of infringement of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, or one of the protocols thereto, the rehearing of criminal proceedings closed by a national decision having the force of res judicata.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case C-662/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 23 October 2018 — AQ v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/18

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 23 October 2018 — AQ v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics
      (Case C-662/18)
      (2019/C 4/24)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: AQ

         Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

         Questions referred

                  —

                  Must the provisions of Article 8 of the Directive of 19 October 2009 (1) be interpreted as precluding different bases of assessment and rate rules being used to tax the capital gain arising on a transfer of securities received in exchange and the deferred capital gain?

                  —

                  Must those provisions be interpreted in particular as precluding a situation in which reductions of the basis of assessment intended to take into account the period for which securities have been held do not apply to the deferred capital gain, having regard to the fact that that basis of assessment rule did not apply on the date on which the capital gain arose, but they do apply to the capital gain on a transfer of the securities received in exchange, taking into account the date of the exchange instead of the date on which the securities given in exchange were acquired?

         (1)  Council Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office of an SE or SCE between Member States (OJ 2009 L 310, p. 34).


title: Case C-602/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Benoît Sauvage, Kristel Lejeune v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of movement for workers – Income received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence – Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation – Allocation of powers of taxation – Member State of residence’s power to tax – Connecting factors)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/10

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Benoît Sauvage, Kristel Lejeune v État belge
      (Case C-602/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Income received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence - Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Allocation of powers of taxation - Member State of residence’s power to tax - Connecting factors)
      (2019/C 4/13)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal de première instance de Liège

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Benoît Sauvage, Kristel Lejeune

         Defendant: État belge

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a tax scheme of a Member State under a tax convention for the avoidance of double taxation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the exemption of the income of a resident which arises in another Member State and relates to employment in that State subject to the condition that the activity in respect of which the income is paid is actually performed in that State.

         (1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.


title: Case C-663/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel d’Aix-En-Provence (France) lodged on 23 October 2018 — Criminal proceedings against B S and C A

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/18

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel d’Aix-En-Provence (France) lodged on 23 October 2018 — Criminal proceedings against B S and C A
      (Case C-663/18)
      (2019/C 4/25)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour d’appel d’Aix-En-Provence

         Parties to the main proceedings

      B S and C A

         Interveners: Ministère public, Conseil national de l’ordre des pharmaciens

         Question referred

      The Court of Justice of the European Union is requested to deliver a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 28, 29, 30 and 32 TFEU, of Regulations No 1307/2013 (1) and No 1308/2013 (2) and of the principle of the free movement of goods, referring to it the question whether those provisions must be interpreted as meaning that the derogating provisions introduced by the arrêté (Decree) of 22 August 1990, by limiting the cultivation, industrialisation and marketing of hemp solely to fibre and seeds, impose a restriction that is not in accordance with [EU] law.

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

         (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).


title: Case T-129/17 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — DI v EASO (Civil service – EASO staff – Members of the contract staff – Fixed-term contract – Probationary period – Decision to dismiss at the end of the probationary period – Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint – Liability)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — DI v EASO
      (Case T-129/17 RENV)
      (Civil service - EASO staff - Members of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Probationary period - Decision to dismiss at the end of the probationary period - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Liability)
      (2019/C 4/36)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: DI (represented by: I. Vlaic and G. Iliescu, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (represented by: W. Stevens, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the decision of the Executive Director of EASO of 28 February 2013 to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and, second, damages for the damage allegedly suffered by him and his family.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs, including those relating to Case F-113/13 and to Case T-730/15 P.


title: Case C-666/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 24 October 2018 — IT Development SAS v Free Mobile SAS

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 24 October 2018 — IT Development SAS v Free Mobile SAS
      (Case C-666/18)
      (2019/C 4/26)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour d’appel de Paris

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: IT Development SAS

         Respondent: Free Mobile SAS

         Question referred

      Does a software licensee’s non-compliance with the terms of a software licence agreement (by expiry of a trial period, by exceeding the number of authorised users or some other limit, such as the number of processors which may be used to execute the software instructions, or by modifying the source code of the software where the licence reserves that right to the initial rightholder) constitute:

                  —

                  an infringement (for the purposes of Directive 2004/48 of 29 April 2004 (1)) of a right of the author of the software which is reserved by Article 4 of Directive 2009/24/EC of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (2)

                  —

                  or may it comply with a separate system of legal rules, such as the system of rules on contractual liability under ordinary law?

         (1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

         (2)  Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ 2009 L 111, p. 16).


title: Case C-696/17 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — Alex SCI v European Commission (Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – State aid – Financing of an urban development project – Rejection of a complaint – Action for annulment – Individual concern – Locus standi)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/10

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — Alex SCI v European Commission
      (Case C-696/17 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Financing of an urban development project - Rejection of a complaint - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Locus standi)
      (2019/C 4/14)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Alex SCI (represented by: J. Fouchet, avocat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, K. Herrmann and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the Commission: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, E. de Moustier and P. Dodeller, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Alex SCI shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

                  3.

                  The French Republic shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018


title: Case T-544/13 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Dyson v Commission (Directive 2010/30/EU – Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products – Commission delegated regulation supplementing the directive – Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners – Essential element of an enabling act)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/20

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Dyson v Commission
      (Case T-544/13 RENV) (1)

      (Directive 2010/30/EU - Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products - Commission delegated regulation supplementing the directive - Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners - Essential element of an enabling act)
      (2019/C 4/27)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Dyson Ltd (Malmesbury, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, E. Batchelor and M. Healy, Solicitors, and A. Patsa, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, K. Herrmann and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings on appeal before the Court of Justice.

         (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case C-296/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Chambre disciplinaire de première instance de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de Midi-Pyrénées (France) lodged on 24 April 2018 — Conseil départemental de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de la Haute-Garonne v RG, RG

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/11

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Chambre disciplinaire de première instance de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de Midi-Pyrénées (France) lodged on 24 April 2018 — Conseil départemental de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de la Haute-Garonne v RG, RG
      (Case C-296/18)
      (2019/C 4/15)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Chambre disciplinaire de première instance de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de Midi-Pyrénées

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Conseil départemental de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de la Haute-Garonne

         Defendants: RG, RG
      By order of 23 October 2018, the Court (Eighth Chamber) ruled:
      Article 8 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a general and absolute prohibition of any advertising by members of the dental profession, in that that profession prohibits any recourse to online advertising methods that promotes specific dentists or their company.


title: Case C-260/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Anodiki Services EPE v GNA, O Evangelismos — Ofthalmiatreio Athinon — Polykliniki, Geniko Ogkologiko Nosokomeio Kifisias — (GONK) ‘Oi Agioi Anargyroi’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 10(g) – Exclusions from its scope – Employment contracts – Definition – Decisions of public hospitals to conclude fixed-term labour contracts for the purposes of catering, the provision of meals and cleaning – Directive 89/665/EEC – Article 1 – Right to an effective remedy)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/3

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Anodiki Services EPE v GNA, O Evangelismos — Ofthalmiatreio Athinon — Polykliniki, Geniko Ogkologiko Nosokomeio Kifisias — (GONK) ‘Oi Agioi Anargyroi’
      (Case C-260/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 10(g) - Exclusions from its scope - Employment contracts - Definition - Decisions of public hospitals to conclude fixed-term labour contracts for the purposes of catering, the provision of meals and cleaning - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 1 - Right to an effective remedy)
      (2019/C 4/04)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Referring court

      Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Anodiki Services EPE

         Defendants: GNA, O Evangelismos — Ofthalmiatreio Athinon — Polykliniki, Geniko Ogkologiko Nosokomeio Kifisias — (GONK) ‘Oi Agioi Anargyroi’

         Interveners: Arianthi Ilia EPE, Fasma AE, Mega Sprint Guard AE, ICM — International Cleaning Methods AE, Myservices Security and Facility AE, Kleenway OE, GEN — KA AE, Geniko Nosokomeio Athinon ‘Georgios Gennimatas’, Ipirotiki Facility Services AE

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 10(g) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2170 of 24 November 2015, must be interpreted to the effect that the notion of ‘employment contracts’, referred to in that provision, covers labour contracts such as those at issue in the main proceedings, that is to say, fixed-term, individual labour contracts which are concluded with persons selected on the basis of objective criteria, such as the duration of unemployment, previous experience and the number of minor dependent children they have.

                  2.

                  The provisions of Directive 2014/24, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2015/2170, Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, the principles of equal treatment, transparency and proportionality, and Articles 16 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union do not apply to a decision of a public authority to make use of employment contracts such as those at issue in the main proceedings in order to perform certain tasks falling within its public interest obligations.

                  3.

                  Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, must be interpreted to the effect that a decision of a contracting authority to conclude employment contracts with natural persons for the provision of certain services without using a public procurement procedure in accordance with Directive 2014/24, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2015/2170, on the ground that, in its opinion, those contracts do not fall within the scope of that directive, may be challenged under that provision by an economic operator with an interest in participating in a public procurement procedure with the same purpose as those contracts and which considers that those contracts do fall within the scope of that directive.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case T-359/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Aldo Supermarkets v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (ALDI) (EU trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for EU word mark ALDI – Earlier national figurative mark ALDO – Relative ground for refusal – Conditions governing admissibility of the opposition – Rule 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) – Conditions governing representation of the earlier mark – Rule 19 of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 7 of Delegated Regulation 2018/625) – Lack of proof of genuine use of earlier mark – Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/27

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Aldo Supermarkets v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (ALDI)
      (Case T-359/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for EU word mark ALDI - Earlier national figurative mark ALDO - Relative ground for refusal - Conditions governing admissibility of the opposition - Rule 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Conditions governing representation of the earlier mark - Rule 19 of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 7 of Delegated Regulation 2018/625) - Lack of proof of genuine use of earlier mark - Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 4/37)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Aldo Supermarkets (Varna, Bulgaria) (represented initially by: C. Saettel, and subsequently by: T. Chevrier and M. Thewes, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene, A. Folliard-Monguiral and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lüzenrath, U. Rademacher, N. Bertram and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 (Case R 976/2016-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Aldo Supermarkets and Aldi Einkauf.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Aldo Supermarkets to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.


title: Case T-286/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — KF v SatCen (Actions for annulment and for compensation – SatCen staff – Members of the contract staff – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Common foreign and security policy – Article 24 TEU – Articles 263, 268, 270 and 275 TFEU – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Equal treatment – Decisions 2014/401/CFSP and 2009/747/CFSP – SatCen’s Appeals Board – Plea of illegality – Request for assistance – Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out – Suspension – Disciplinary proceedings – Removal – Principle of sound administration – Requirement of impartiality – Right to be heard – Access to the file – Non-contractual liability – Premature claim for damages – Non-material damage)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/20

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — KF v SatCen
      (Case T-286/15) (1)

      (Actions for annulment and for compensation - SatCen staff - Members of the contract staff - Jurisdiction of the EU judicature - Common foreign and security policy - Article 24 TEU - Articles 263, 268, 270 and 275 TFEU - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Equal treatment - Decisions 2014/401/CFSP and 2009/747/CFSP - SatCen’s Appeals Board - Plea of illegality - Request for assistance - Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out - Suspension - Disciplinary proceedings - Removal - Principle of sound administration - Requirement of impartiality - Right to be heard - Access to the file - Non-contractual liability - Premature claim for damages - Non-material damage)
      (2019/C 4/28)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: KF (represented by: A. Kunst, lawyer, and N. Macaulay, Barrister)

         Defendant: The European Union Satellite Centre (represented by: L. Defalque and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action, first, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decisions of the Director of SatCen of 5 July 2013 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, to suspend the applicant and to reject her request for assistance and of 28 February 2014 to remove the applicant, and the decision of SatCen’s Appeals Board of 26 January 2015 confirming those decisions and, second, pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Appeals Board of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) of 26 January 2015;

                  2.

                  Annuls the decision of the Director of SatCen of 5 July 2013 suspending KF;

                  3.

                  Annuls the decision of the Director of SatCen of 28 February 2014 removing KF;

                  4.

                  Orders SatCen to pay KF the sum of EUR 10 000 as compensation for the non-material harm sustained by her;

                  5.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  6.

                  Orders SatCen to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by KF;

                  7.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case T-550/17: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Troszczynski v Parliament (Law governing the institutions – Member of the European Parliament – Privileges and immunities – Decision to lift parliamentary immunity – Activity unconnected to the functions of a Member – Procedure for lifting immunity – Non-contractual liability – Damage – Causal link)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Troszczynski v Parliament
      (Case T-550/17) (1)

      (Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Decision to lift parliamentary immunity - Activity unconnected to the functions of a Member - Procedure for lifting immunity - Non-contractual liability - Damage - Causal link)
      (2019/C 4/38)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Mylène Troszczynski (Noyon, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially, M. Dean and S. Alonso de León, and subsequently S. Alonso de León, N. Görlitz and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 14 June 2017 by which the Parliament lifted the applicant’s immunity and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mylène Troszczynski to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.


title: Case C-331/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma — Italy) — Martina Sciotto v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Clause 5 – Measures to prevent the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships – National legislation excluding the application of those measures in the sector of activity of operatic and orchestral foundations)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/4

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma — Italy) — Martina Sciotto v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma
      (Case C-331/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 5 - Measures to prevent the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships - National legislation excluding the application of those measures in the sector of activity of operatic and orchestral foundations)
      (2019/C 4/05)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte d’appello di Roma

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Martina Sciotto

         Defendant: Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

         Operative part of the judgment

      Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the common law rules governing employment relationships and intended to penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts by the automatic transformation of the fixed-term contract into a contract of indefinite duration if the employment relationship goes beyond a specific date are not applicable to the sector of activity of operatic and orchestral foundations, where there is no other effective measure in the domestic legal system penalising abuses identified in that sector.

         (1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.


title: Case T-34/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Lithuania v Commission (EAGF – Expenditure excluded from financing – Specific support for the bovine and ovine meat sectors – On-site inspections – Physical verification of the animals – Quality of the inspections – Inspection report – Flat-rate correction – Obligation to state reasons – Proportionality – One-off correction)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/21

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Lithuania v Commission
      (Case T-34/16) (1)

      (EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Specific support for the bovine and ovine meat sectors - On-site inspections - Physical verification of the animals - Quality of the inspections - Inspection report - Flat-rate correction - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - One-off correction)
      (2019/C 4/29)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: initially, D. Kriaučiūnas, T. Orlickas and R. Krasuckaitė, and subsequently T. Orlickas and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 303, p. 35).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case T-758/17: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT BAR) (EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark PERFECT BAR – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT BAR)
      (Case T-758/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark PERFECT BAR - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 4/39)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Perfect Bar LLC (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: F. Miazzetto, J.L. Gracia Albero and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2017 (Case R 2439/2016-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign PERFECT BAR as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 September 2017 (Case R 2439/2016-4) in respect of ‘Protein supplements’ and ‘Dietary and nutritional supplements’;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case T-334/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — FN and Others v CEPOL (Appeal – Civil service – Temporary staff – Transfer of CEPOL’s seat in Bramshill (United Kingdom) to Budapest (Hungary) – Reassignment of staff – Act not open to challenge – Inadmissibility of the action before the Civil Service Tribunal)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/22

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — FN and Others v CEPOL
      (Case T-334/16 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Transfer of CEPOL’s seat in Bramshill (United Kingdom) to Budapest (Hungary) - Reassignment of staff - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility of the action before the Civil Service Tribunal)
      (2019/C 4/30)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: FN, FB, FQ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (represented by: initially by F. Bánfi and R. Woldhuis, and subsequently by R. Woldhuis and D. Schroeder, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

         Re:

      Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2016, FN and Others v CEPOL (F-41/15 DISS II, EU:F:2016:70) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2016, FN and Others v CEPOL (F-41/15 DISS II) in so far as it did not declare inadmissible the claims for annulment made by FN, FP and FQ;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the claims for annulment made by FN, FP and FQ before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-41/15 DISS II;

                  3.

                  Dismisses the appeal for the remainder;

                  4.

                  Orders FN, FP and FQ, on the one hand, and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL), on the other hand, each to bear their own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and to the proceedings at first instance.

         (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Case C-413/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — proceedings brought by ‘Roche Lietuva’ UAB (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public supply contract for medical diagnostic equipment and materials – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 42 – Award – Margin of appreciation of the contracting authority – Detailed formulation of the technical specifications)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/5

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — proceedings brought by ‘Roche Lietuva’ UAB
      (Case C-413/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public supply contract for medical diagnostic equipment and materials - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 42 - Award - Margin of appreciation of the contracting authority - Detailed formulation of the technical specifications)
      (2019/C 4/06)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

      ‘Roche Lietuva’ UAB

         In the presence of: Kauno Dainavos poliklinika VšĮ

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 18 and 42 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as not imposing on the contracting authority, in establishing technical specifications in a procurement procedure concerning the acquisition of medical supplies, by principle, prioritising either the importance of the individual characteristics of the medical supplies or the importance of the result of their functioning, but requiring that the technical specifications, as a whole, comply with the principles of equality of treatment and proportionality. It is for the national court to assess whether, in the dispute before it, the technical specifications at issue comply with those requirements.

         (1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.


title: Case C-626/18: Action brought on 3 October 2018 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/12

      Action brought on 3 October 2018 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
      (Case C-626/18)
      (2019/C 4/16)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

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

         Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Article 1(2)(a), Article 1(2)(b) and Article 3(3) of Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 June 2018 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services; (1)

                  —

                  order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

            In the alternative, in the event that the Court of Justice considers that the contested provisions of Directive (EU) 2018/957 cannot be separated from the rest of that directive without altering its substance, the Republic of Poland claims that the Court should annul Directive (EU) 2018/957 in its entirety.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The Republic of Poland raises the following pleas in law against the contested provisions of Directive 2018/957:

                  1.

                  Plea in law alleging that the Directive introduces restrictions on freedom to provide services within the European Union in so far as concerns nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended, prohibited on the basis of Article 56 TFEU, by:

                              (a)

                              requiring Member States to ensure remuneration of posted workers, including overtime rates, established in accordance with the law or practice of the Member State of the posting (Article 1(2)(a)),

                              (b)

                              requiring Member States to guarantee posted workers in principle all the applicable terms and conditions established in accordance with the law or practice of the Member State of the posting, when the effective duration of one worker’s posting or the cumulative duration of the posting periods of workers which take place for the performance of the same task exceeds 12 months, and — if the service provider provides a reasoned justification — 18 months (Article 1(2)(b)),

                  2.

                  Plea in law alleging infringement of Article 53(1) and Article 62 TFEU, by the adoption, on the basis of those provisions, of measures which are not intended to facilitate the exercise of non-salaried activities (facilitation of the provision of cross-border services) but which are contrary to that objective,

                  3.

                  Plea in law alleging infringement of Article 53(1) and Article 62 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 58(1) TFEU, on the ground that the contested directive is applicable to the road transport sector (Article 3(3)).

            The Republic of Poland claims, in particular, that the principal objective of the contested provisions on the remuneration of posted workers is to restrict the freedom to provide services by increasing the burden on service providers, with a view to eliminating their competitive advantage resulting from lower pay rates applicable in their country of establishment. The amendments introduced lead to discrimination against cross-border service providers. Those amendments are not justified by overriding reasons in the public interest, in particular considerations concerning the social protection of workers and fair competition. They also constitute an infringement of the requirement of proportionality.

         (1)  OJ 2018 L 173, p. 16.


title: Case T-447/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO — Yokohama Rubber (Representation of an L-shaped groove) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark representing an L-shaped groove – Absolute ground for refusal – Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result – Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 – Application of the law ratione temporis – Shape of the goods – Nature of the sign – Account taken of material relevant to identifying the essential characteristics of the sign – General interest underlying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/23

      Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO — Yokohama Rubber (Representation of an L-shaped groove)
      (Case T-447/16) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing an L-shaped groove - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 - Application of the law ratione temporis - Shape of the goods - Nature of the sign - Account taken of material relevant to identifying the essential characteristics of the sign - General interest underlying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94)
      (2019/C 4/31)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T.M. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

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

         The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: F. Boscariol de Roberto, D. Martucci and I. Gatto, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 (Case R 2583/2014-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Yokohama Rubber and Pirelli Tyre.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 April 2016 (Case R 2583/2014 5);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA;

                  3.

                  Orders Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.


title: Case T-759/17: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT Bar) (EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark PERFECT BAR – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT Bar)
      (Case T-759/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark PERFECT BAR - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 4/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Perfect Bar LLC (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: F. Miazzetto, J.L. Gracia Albero and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2017 (Case R 2440/2016-4), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign PERFECT Bar as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 September 2017 (Case R 2440/2016-4) in respect of ‘Protein supplements’ and ‘Dietary and nutritional supplements’;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case C-632/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 10 October 2018 — Fonds du logement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale SCRL v Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN)

text:
               7.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 4/13

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 10 October 2018 — Fonds du logement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale SCRL v Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN)
      (Case C-632/18)
      (2019/C 4/17)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Société coopérative à responsabilité limitée ‘Fonds du logement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale’

         Opposing party: Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN)

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Are paragraphs 2.22, 2.23, 2.27, 2.28 and 20.33 of Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts [in the European Union] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a separate institutional entity placed under government control must be regarded as being non-market and thus falling within the general government sector where it has the characteristics of a captive financial institution, there being no need to examine its risk exposure?

                  2.

                  Can an entity operating under government control be regarded as being a captive financial institution within the meaning of paragraphs 2.21 to 2.23, 2.27 and 2.28 of Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts [in the European Union]:

                              (a)

                              on the ground that the regulation of its activity by the government in question removes from it control over its assets, even though it is afforded the capacity to decide to grant the mortgage loans which it provides, their duration, their amount and some of their conditions, whilst at the same time the government determines other factors, and in particular the interest rate applied to the loans;

                              (b)

                              on the ground that, inter alia, the guarantee given to it by government in respect of the loans taken out by it removes from it control over its liabilities, without examining the purpose and the effects of such a guarantee in the light of its features in the present case and of the underlying economic reality?

         (1)  OJ 2013 L 174, p. 1.