title: Case C-416/18 P: Appeal brought on 26 June 2018 by Mykola Yanovych Azarov against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 April 2018 in Case T-190/16, Mykola Yanovych Azarov v Council of the European Union

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/19

      Appeal brought on 26 June 2018 by Mykola Yanovych Azarov against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 April 2018 in Case T-190/16, Mykola Yanovych Azarov v Council of the European Union
      (Case C-416/18 P)
      (2018/C 301/27)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

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

         Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 in Case T-190/16;

                  —

                  itself deliver a final decision in the proceedings and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (2) in so far as they concern the appellant, and order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice;

                  —

                  in the alternative to the form of order set out in the paragraph above, refer the case back to the General Court for a decision subject to the legal findings in the judgment of the Court of Justice and reserve the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

                  1.

                  The General Court wrongly held that the Council had not infringed fundamental rights. The General Court erred in law in its appraisal of the infringement of both the right to property and the freedom to conduct business. In particular, it wrongly found the measures to be appropriate and proportionate. Further, the General Court made procedural errors and infringed procedural rights.

                  2.

                  The General Court wrongly found that the Council had not abused its powers. First, the General Court failed to carry out any specific checks in respect of the appellant. Second, the General Court wrongly assumed that the absence of specific evidence was irrelevant.

                  3.

                  The General Court wrongly held that the Council had not infringed the right to sound administration. First, the General Court erred in law in its discussion on the Council’s obligation of impartiality. Second, the General Court misconstrued the scope of the obligation to state reasons.

                  4.

                  The General court wrongly held that the Council had committed no ‘manifest error of assessment’.

                  5.

                  The General Court infringed the right to a fair trial by relying on purely political reasons.

         (1)  OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76.

         (2)  OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1.


title: Case C-162/18 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2018 by Wenger SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 January 2018 in Case T-869/16: Wenger v EUIPO

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/2

      Appeal brought on 28 February 2018 by Wenger SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 January 2018 in Case T-869/16: Wenger v EUIPO
      (Case C-162/18 P)
      (2018/C 311/02)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Wenger SA (represented by: A. Sulovsky, Rechtsanwältin)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Swissgear Sàrl
      By order of 5 July 2018 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that there is no need to adjudicate on the present appeal.


title: Case T-134/18: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/27

      Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH)
      (Case T-134/18) (1)

      (2018/C 319/35)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Case C-553/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘TTL’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Corporate taxation — Payments made by a company resident in a Member State to non-resident companies for the leasing of rail tankers — Obligation to charge withholding tax on income from a domestic source paid to a non-resident company — Non-compliance — Double taxation conventions — Charging the resident company default interest for non-payment of the withholding tax — Interest payable from the expiry of the statutory time limit for payment until the date on which evidence that the double taxation convention is applicable is furnished — Irrecoverable interest)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/5

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘TTL’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia
      (Case C-553/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Corporate taxation - Payments made by a company resident in a Member State to non-resident companies for the leasing of rail tankers - Obligation to charge withholding tax on income from a domestic source paid to a non-resident company - Non-compliance - Double taxation conventions - Charging the resident company default interest for non-payment of the withholding tax - Interest payable from the expiry of the statutory time limit for payment until the date on which evidence that the double taxation convention is applicable is furnished - Irrecoverable interest))
      (2018/C 328/06)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Varhoven administrativen sad

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant:‘TTL’ EOOD

         Respondent: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

         Intervener: Varhovna administrativna prokuratura

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby the payment of income by a resident company to a company established in another Member State is, in principle, subject to withholding tax, except where otherwise provided in the double taxation convention entered into between those two Member States, if that legislation requires the resident company, which neither deducts nor pays that sum to the tax authorities of the first Member State, to pay irrecoverable default interest for the period from the expiry of the time limit for payment of the income tax up to the date on which the non-resident company proves that the requirements for the application of the double taxation convention have been fulfilled, even though, in accordance with that convention, the non-resident company is not liable to pay any tax in the first Member State or the amount thereof is lower than that normally payable under the tax law of that Member State.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case C-107/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Aviabaltika’ UAB v ‘Ūkio bankas’ AB, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/47/EC — Enforcement of financial collateral arrangements — Commencement of insolvency proceedings against the collateral taker — Occurrence of the enforcement event — Inclusion of the financial collateral in the assets remaining after the insolvency — Obligation to satisfy the claims primarily from the financial collateral)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/13

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Aviabaltika’ UAB v ‘Ūkio bankas’ AB, in liquidation
      (Case C-107/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/47/EC - Enforcement of financial collateral arrangements - Commencement of insolvency proceedings against the collateral taker - Occurrence of the enforcement event - Inclusion of the financial collateral in the assets remaining after the insolvency - Obligation to satisfy the claims primarily from the financial collateral))
      (2018/C 328/14)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant:‘Aviabaltika’ UAB

         Respondent:‘Ūkio bankas’ AB, in liquidation

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 4(5) of Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, as amended by Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to adopt rules which enable a taker of collateral provided under a security financial collateral arrangement to recover its claim, arising from a failure to discharge the relevant financial obligations, from that collateral, where the enforcement event occurs after insolvency proceedings have been commenced against that taker.

                  2.

                  Article 4(1) and (5) of Directive 2002/47, as amended by Directive 2009/44, must be interpreted as not requiring the taker of collateral provided under a security financial collateral arrangement to recover its claim, arising from a failure to discharge the financial obligations covered by that arrangement, primarily from that collateral.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 May 2018 in Case E-6/17 — Fjarskipti hf. V Síminn hf. (Article 54 EEA — Abuse of a dominant position — Margin squeeze — Right to claim damages — Applicability of provisions of the EEA Agreement in domestic proceedings — Significance of a final ruling of a competition authority)

text:
               20.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 30 May 2018
      in Case E-6/17
      Fjarskipti hf. V Síminn hf.

         (Article 54 EEA — Abuse of a dominant position — Margin squeeze — Right to claim damages — Applicability of provisions of the EEA Agreement in domestic proceedings — Significance of a final ruling of a competition authority)

      (2018/C 335/11)
      In Case E-6/17, Fjarskipti hf. v Síminn hf. — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the District Court of Reykjavík (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Article 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), and Martin Ospelt (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 30 May 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

                  1.

                  A natural or legal person must be able to rely on Article 54 EEA, as it is, or has been made, part of domestic law, in order to claim compensation before a national court for a violation of the prohibitions laid down in that provision.

                  2.

                  It is not a prerequisite for a court’s assessment of a damages claim for violation of competition rules that a national competition authority has handed down a final ruling finding a violation of Article 54 EEA. Where a national competition authority has given such a ruling, EEA law does not require that the ruling is binding on the national courts in a follow-on action. In the absence of EEA law governing the procedure and remedies for violations of competition law, it falls under the procedural autonomy of each EEA State to lay down the detailed rules on the degree of significance to be attached to a final ruling, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

                  3.

                  The fact that a dominant undertaking is obliged to purchase termination services from other operators at a rate higher than its own, does not preclude a finding that the dominant undertaking’s own pricing practice in the form of a margin squeeze constitutes an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 54 EEA.

                  4.

                  It is sufficient for the finding of an unlawful margin squeeze in violation of Article 54 EEA that the undertaking in question is in a dominant position on the relevant wholesale market. It is not required that the undertaking holds a dominant position also on the relevant retail market.


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 May 2018 in Case E-9/17 — Edmund Falkenhahn AG v The Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht) (Directive 2009/110/EC — Electronic money institutions — Redemption at par value — Safeguarding requirements)

text:
               20.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 30 May 2018
      in Case E-9/17
      Edmund Falkenhahn AG v The Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht)

         (Directive 2009/110/EC — Electronic money institutions — Redemption at par value — Safeguarding requirements)

      (2018/C 335/12)
      In Case E-9/17, Edmund Falkenhahn AG v The Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht) — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Liechtenstein Appeals Board of the Financial Market Authority (Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Martin Ospelt (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 30 May 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

                  1.

                  It is incompatible with Article 11(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC if electronic money has a value different from par value on the receipt of funds at any time, including during the period between issuance and redemption.

                  2.

                  The first and second subparagraphs of Article 7(2) of Directive 2009/110/EC, read in conjunction with Table 1 of point 14 of Annex I to Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions, define exhaustively what assets constitute secure, low-risk assets for the purposes of Article 7(1) of Directive 2009/110/EC.


title: Case T-275/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Curto v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints between Accredited Parliamentary Assistants and Members of the European Parliament and its prevention at the workplace — Decision rejecting the request for assistance — Error of assessment — Scope of the duty to provide assistance — Duration of the administrative procedure — Reasonable period — Refusal to disclose reports drawn up by the Advisory Committee)

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/15

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Curto v Parliament
      (Case T-275/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints between Accredited Parliamentary Assistants and Members of the European Parliament and its prevention at the workplace - Decision rejecting the request for assistance - Error of assessment - Scope of the duty to provide assistance - Duration of the administrative procedure - Reasonable period - Refusal to disclose reports drawn up by the Advisory Committee))
      (2018/C 341/26)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Michela Curto (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: L. Levi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau, E. Taneva and M. Rantala, Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 270 TFEU for (i) annulment of the decision of the European Parliament, of 30 June 2016, by which the Authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance submitted by the applicant on 14 April 2014 and (ii) compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that authority’s disregard of the duty to provide assistance laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, inter alia on account of the excessive duration of the procedure.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 30 June 2016 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance submitted by Ms Michela Curto on 14 April 2014;

                  2.

                  Orders the Parliament to pay Ms Curto, in respect of the non-material harm suffered, the sum of EUR 10 000, together with default interest from the date of delivery of the present judgment at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations;

                  3.

                  Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case C-472/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 19 July 2018 — ER v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

text:
               15.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/7

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 19 July 2018 — ER v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria
      (Case C-472/18)
      (2018/C 373/08)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: ER

         Respondent: Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

         Question referred

      Are a provision in a collective agreement and an employer’s practice, pursuant to which, for the purposes of remuneration and promotion, the length of service of a part-time female employee whose working hours are ‘distributed vertically’ over the whole year is to be calculated solely on the basis of time actually worked, contrary to Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work [annexed to] Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997, (1) and to Articles 2(1)(b) and 14(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)? (2)

         (1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

         (2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).


title: Case T-562/18: Action brought on 21 September 2018 — YP v Commission

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/57

      Action brought on 21 September 2018 — YP v Commission
      (Case T-562/18)
      (2018/C 399/73)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: YP (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      Declare and rule,

                  —

                  that the decision of the Commission of 18 September 2017 to impose the penalty of a reprimand on the applicant is annulled;

                  —

                  that the defendant is ordered to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment committed by the defendant in considering that the applicant had failed to fulfil his obligations flowing from Article 12 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.


title: Case C-86/18: Order of the President of the Court of 21 August 2018 — European Commission v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/31

      Order of the President of the Court of 21 August 2018 — European Commission v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
      (Case C-86/18) (1)

      (2018/C 399/41)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case C-136/18 P: Appeal brought on 19 February 2018 by Robert Hansen against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2017 in Case T-304/16: bet365 Group v EUIPO

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/17

      Appeal brought on 19 February 2018 by Robert Hansen against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2017 in Case T-304/16: bet365 Group v EUIPO
      (Case C-136/18 P)
      (2018/C 399/24)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Robert Hansen (represented by: M. Pütz-Poulalion, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
      By order of 6 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-284/18: Order of the President of the Court of 9 August 2018 (request for a preliminary decision from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Equitalia centro SpA v Poste Italiane SpA

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/31

      Order of the President of the Court of 9 August 2018 (request for a preliminary decision from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Equitalia centro SpA v Poste Italiane SpA
      (Case C-284/18) (1)

      (2018/C 399/42)
      Language of the case: Italian
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.


title: Case T-776/17: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Medora Therapeutics v EUIPO — Biohealth Italia (LITHOREN)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/58

      Order of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Medora Therapeutics v EUIPO — Biohealth Italia (LITHOREN)
      (Case T-776/17) (1)

      (2018/C 399/74)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.


title: Case C-425/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 28 June 2018 — Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS) v Gruppo Torinese Trasporti Gtt SpA

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/18

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 28 June 2018 — Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS) v Gruppo Torinese Trasporti Gtt SpA
      (Case C-425/18)
      (2018/C 399/25)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS)

         Defendant: Gruppo Torinese Trasporti Gtt SpA

         Question referred

      Do Articles 53(3) and 54(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC, (1) in conjunction with Article 45(2)(d) of Directive 2004/18/EC, (2) preclude a provision such as Article 38(1)(f) of Legislative Decree No 163/2006 of the Italian Republic, as interpreted by national case-law, which excludes from the scope of ‘grave professional misconduct’ on the part of an economic operator conduct consisting in infringement of the competition rules, which has been established and penalised by the national competition authority by decision upheld by the courts, thereby precluding a priori the contracting authorities from assessing such infringements independently for the purposes of determining whether such an economic operator is to be excluded from a tender procedure for the award of a public contract, as a possible but not a mandatory outcome?

         (1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

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


title: Case T-604/16: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — HD v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Household allowance — Education allowance — Dependent child allowance — Conditions for granting — Deduction of an allowance of like nature received from another source — Recovery of undue payments — Decisions to end entitlement to certain allowances — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — HD v Parliament
      (Case T-604/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Household allowance - Education allowance - Dependent child allowance - Conditions for granting - Deduction of an allowance of like nature received from another source - Recovery of undue payments - Decisions to end entitlement to certain allowances - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment))
      (2018/C 399/43)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: HD (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decisions of the Parliament of 21 September, 5 October, 27 November and 15 December 2015 recovering the amounts alleged to have been unduly received by the applicant in respect of the education allowance, secondly, of the decisions of the Parliament of 5, 13, 23 October, of the 5, 11 and 12 November 2015 recovering the amounts alleged to have been unduly received by her in respect of education allowance and dependent child allowance and depriving her of her right to household allowance and, thirdly, ‘in so far as necessary’, of the decision of 21 April 2016 rejecting her complaint.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders HD to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-34/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-371/18: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Reiner Stemme Utility Air Systems v AESA

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/58

      Order of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Reiner Stemme Utility Air Systems v AESA
      (Case T-371/18) (1)

      (2018/C 399/75)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2016.


title: Case T-518/18: Action brought on 31 August 2018 — YG v Commission

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/41

      Action brought on 31 August 2018 — YG v Commission
      (Case T-518/18)
      (2018/C 399/56)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: YG (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul, first, the defendant’s decision dated 13 November 2017 not to include the applicant in the list of promoted officials;

                  —

                  annul, subsequently, the defendant’s decision dated 17 May 2018 rejecting his complaint against the decision dated 13 November 2017;

                  —

                  order the defendant to reimburse the applicant’s incurred legal costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The contested decision was based on certain manifest errors of assessment; furthermore, it failed to provide sufficient reasons and did not prove that an examination of the applicant’s merits was carried out in accordance with the principle of equal treatment.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of good administration as protected by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by virtue of its lack of diligence in the drafting and substantiation of the contested decision.


title: Case T-519/18: Action brought on 3 September 2018 — Global Silicones Council and Others v ECHA

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/42

      Action brought on 3 September 2018 — Global Silicones Council and Others v ECHA
      (Case T-519/18)
      (2018/C 399/57)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Global Silicones Council (Washington, D.C., United States) and 6 others (represented by: R. Cana, F. Mattioli, G. David, lawyers, and D. Abrahams, Barrister)

         Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the application admissible and well-founded;

                  —

                  annul the contested decision, (1) in so far as it includes all three of the substances Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (‘D4’), Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (‘D5’) and Dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (‘D6’) in the candidate list of substances of very high concern;

                  —

                  alternatively, annul the contested decision with regard to one or more of those inclusions in the candidate list;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings; and

                  —

                  take such other or further measures as justice may require.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment of the Bioaccumulative (‘B’) properties of D4, D5 and D6, and in its assessment of the Toxic (‘T’) properties of D5 and D6 and exceeded its competence as well as breached Article 59 of Regulation 1907/2006:

                              —

                              by relying on the MSC and RAC opinions without making its own assessment of the information at hand and thereby importing the vitiating errors in those opinions;

                              —

                              by concluding that D4, D5 and D6 meet the vPvB criteria in Annex XIII although persistence (P) and bioaccumulation (B) were not established for the same compartment;

                              —

                              by not taking into consideration the specific nature of D4, D5 and D6 (their ‘hybrid’ nature) when applying the criteria laid down in Annex XIII for bioaccumulation;

                              —

                              by reaching conclusions on the bioaccumulation (B/vB) of D4 and D5 which the evidence relied upon is not capable of sustaining;

                              —

                              by failing to assess the new evidence on bioaccumulation (B/vB) for D4 and D5 available to it after the MSC and RAC opinions;

                              —

                              by failing to take into account all relevant information in concluding on the bioaccumulation (vB) of D6;

                              —

                              by failing to consider the information on the toxicity of D5 itself and instead identifying D5 as PBT based on the presence of D4 as an impurity, and by identifying D5 as PBT without the specific limits on the content of D4 agreed upon by the MSC;

                              —

                              by failing to consider the information on the toxicity of D6 itself and instead identifying D6 as PBT based on the presence of D4 as an impurity, and by identifying D6 as PBT without the specific limits on the content of D4 agreed upon by the MSC.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality, since the inclusion in the candidate list would have exceeded the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to attain the objective pursued and is not the least onerous measure to which the defendant could have had recourse.

         (1)  Decision published on 27 June 2018 of the European Chemicals Agency ‘Inclusion of substances of very high concern in the Candidate List for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV’, in so far as it includes three substances Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4), Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (‘D5’) and Dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (‘D6’) in the Candidate List of substances of very high concern pursuant to Article 59 of the Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 30.12.2006 L 396, p 1)


title: Case T-39/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to preliminary investigations concerning schemes for State aid in the ports sector of all the Member States — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Concept of privacy — Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Application of a general presumption — Overriding public interest)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) v Commission
      (Case T-39/17) (1)

      ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to preliminary investigations concerning schemes for State aid in the ports sector of all the Member States - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Concept of privacy - Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Application of a general presumption - Overriding public interest))
      (2018/C 399/45)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) (Brest, France) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde and E. Wauters, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, B. Stromsky and C. Georgieva- Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 7755 final of 23 November 2016 refusing to grant the applicant, first, full access to the questionnaire sent to all the Member States, secondly, access to the Member States’ replies to that questionnaire, referred to in a letter sent on 8 July 2016 to the French Republic in the context of State aid procedure SA.38398 (2016/C) (ex 2015/E) –Tax treatment of ports in France.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


title: Case T-524/18: Action brought on 29 August 2018 — Billa v EUIPO — Boardriders IP Holdings (Billa)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/43

      Action brought on 29 August 2018 — Billa v EUIPO — Boardriders IP Holdings (Billa)
      (Case T-524/18)
      (2018/C 399/58)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Billa AG (Wiener Neudorf, Austria) (represented by: J. Rether, M. Kinkeldey, J. Rosenhäger, S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Boardriders IP Holdings LLC (Huntington Beach, California, United States)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Billa — Application for registration No 11 592 623

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2018 in Case R 2235/2017-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 46 and 71 of Regulation No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in connection with Articles 2(2)(i) and 27(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation No 2017/1430.


title: Case C-475/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 July 2018 — SATI — Società Autocooperative Trasporti Italiani SpA v Azienda di Trasporti Molisana — A.T.M. SpA

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/22

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 July 2018 — SATI — Società Autocooperative Trasporti Italiani SpA v Azienda di Trasporti Molisana — A.T.M. SpA
      (Case C-475/18)
      (2018/C 399/30)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: SATI — Società Autocooperative Trasporti Italiani SpA

         Respondent: Azienda di Trasporti Molisana — A.T.M. SpA

         Question referred

      Must Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) of 23 October 2007 be interpreted as meaning that national legislation contains a prohibition on directly awarding local public transport services, precluding such direct award even in circumstances in which it would be permitted by EU legislation, where it establishes a general rule that the abovementioned services must be awarded by means of a public call for tenders, or is that the case only if there is a specific prohibition on directly awarding such contracts that also refers to the circumstances in which it is permitted by EU law?

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).


title: Case C-454/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Vincent Piessevaux v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Civil Service — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII — Pension rights acquired under a national scheme — Transfer of those rights to the EU pension scheme — Difference in treatment between officials who have had the capital representing their pension rights transferred to the EU scheme before and after the entry into force of new implementing provisions)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/10

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Vincent Piessevaux v Council of the European Union
      (Case C-454/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Civil Service - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII - Pension rights acquired under a national scheme - Transfer of those rights to the EU pension scheme - Difference in treatment between officials who have had the capital representing their pension rights transferred to the EU scheme before and after the entry into force of new implementing provisions))
      (2018/C 399/12)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Vincent Piessevaux (represented by: L. Ponteville, avocat)

         Other party: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Vincent Piessevaux to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.


title: Case C-547/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Basic Net SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Figurative trade mark representing three vertical stripes — Proof of distinctive character acquired through use)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/11

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Basic Net SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      (Case C-547/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Figurative trade mark representing three vertical stripes - Proof of distinctive character acquired through use))
      (2018/C 399/14)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Basic Net SpA (represented by: D. Sindico, avvocato)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Basic Net SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.


title: Case C-80/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel v Alina Antónia Destapado Pão Mole Juliana, Cristiana Micaela Caetano Juliana (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Second Directive 84/5/EEC — Article 1(4) — Obligation to take out a contract of insurance — Vehicle parked on private land — Right of the compensation body to bring an action against the owner of the uninsured vehicle)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/8

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel v Alina Antónia Destapado Pão Mole Juliana, Cristiana Micaela Caetano Juliana
      (Case C-80/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Second Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 1(4) - Obligation to take out a contract of insurance - Vehicle parked on private land - Right of the compensation body to bring an action against the owner of the uninsured vehicle))
      (2018/C 399/09)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

         Respondents: Alina Antónia Destapado Pão Mole Juliana, Cristiana Micaela Caetano Juliana

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the conclusion of a contract of insurance against civil liability relating to the use of a motor vehicle is obligatory when the vehicle concerned is still registered in a Member State and is capable of being driven but is parked on private land, solely by the choice of the owner, who no longer intends to drive it.

                  2.

                  Article 1(4) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that the body referred to in that provision has the right to bring an action, in addition to an action against the person or persons responsible for the accident, against the person who was subject to the obligation to take out insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of the vehicle which caused the damage or injuries for which compensation was provided by that body, but who had not concluded a contract for that purpose, even if that person has no civil liability for the accident in which the damage or injuries occurred.

         (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case C-448/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 9 July 2018 — WA v Münchener Hypothekenbank eG

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/36

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 9 July 2018 — WA v Münchener Hypothekenbank eG
      (Case C-448/18)
      (2018/C 408/48)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landgericht München I

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: WA

         Defendant: Münchener Hypothekenbank eG
      The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 6 September 2018.


title: Case C-369/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Shajin Ahmed v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Borders, asylum and immigration — Refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 17 — Exclusion from subsidiary protection status — Grounds — Conviction for a serious crime — Determination of seriousness on the basis of the penalty provided for under national law — Whether permissible — Need for an individual assessment)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/25

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Shajin Ahmed v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
      (Case C-369/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Borders, asylum and immigration - Refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 17 - Exclusion from subsidiary protection status - Grounds - Conviction for a serious crime - Determination of seriousness on the basis of the penalty provided for under national law - Whether permissible - Need for an individual assessment))
      (2018/C 408/32)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Shajin Ahmed

         Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the applicant for subsidiary protection is deemed to have ‘committed a serious crime’ within the meaning of that provision, which may exclude him from that protection, on the basis of the sole criterion of the penalty provided for a specific crime under the law of that Member State. It is for the authority or competent national court ruling on the application for subsidiary protection to assess the seriousness of the crime at issue, by carrying out a full investigation into all the circumstances of the individual case concerned.

         (1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.


title: Case C-372/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Vision Research Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of goods — Volatile-memory camera, meaning that recorded images are deleted when the camera is switched off or when new images are captured — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8525 80 19 and 8525 80 30 — Explanatory Notes — Interpretation — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 — Interpretation — Validity)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/26

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Vision Research Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
      (Case C-372/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification of goods - Volatile-memory camera, meaning that recorded images are deleted when the camera is switched off or when new images are captured - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 8525 80 19 and 8525 80 30 - Explanatory Notes - Interpretation - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 - Interpretation - Validity))
      (2018/C 408/33)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Noord-Holland

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Vision Research Europe BV

         Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

         Operative part of the judgment

      Subheading 8525 80 30 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as covering a camera, such as the camera at issue in the main proceedings, that is capable of capturing a large number of photographic images per second and of storing them in its volatile internal memory — images that are deleted from that memory when the camera is switched off — and that Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 of 4 February 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature, in so far as it is applicable by analogy to goods that have the characteristics of that camera, is invalid.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.


title: Case C-99/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 — Infineon Technologies AG v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for smart card chips — Network of bilateral contacts — Exchanges of commercially sensitive information — Challenge of the authenticity of the evidence — Rights of the defence — Restriction of competition ‘by object’ — Single and continuous infringement — Judicial review — Unlimited jurisdiction — Scope — Calculation of the amount of the fine)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/15

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 — Infineon Technologies AG v European Commission
      (Case C-99/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for smart card chips - Network of bilateral contacts - Exchanges of commercially sensitive information - Challenge of the authenticity of the evidence - Rights of the defence - Restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Single and continuous infringement - Judicial review - Unlimited jurisdiction - Scope - Calculation of the amount of the fine))
      (2018/C 408/17)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Infineon Technologies AG (represented by: M. Dreher, T. Lübbig and M. Klusmann, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, A. Dawes and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 December 2016, Infineon Technologies v Commission (T-758/14, not published, EU:T:2016:737), inasmuch as the General Court rejected the appellant’s claim in the alternative for a reduction of the amount of the fine that the European Commission imposed on it;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Refers the case back to the General Court for it to give judgment on the claim for a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on Infineon Technologies AG in the light of the sixth plea;

                  4.

                  Reserves the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


title: Case C-109/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n° 5 de Cartagena — Spain) — Bankia SA v Juan Carlos Marí Merino, Juan Pérez Gavilán, María Concepción Marí Merino (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices — Loan agreement secured by a mortgage — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — Revaluation of immovable property prior to its sale by auction — Validity of the enforceable instrument — Article 11 — Adequate and effective means to combat unfair commercial practices — National court prohibited from assessing the existence of unfair commercial practices — Impossibility of staying the mortgage enforcement proceedings — Articles 2 and 10 — Code of good conduct — Non-legally binding nature of that code)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/16

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 5 de Cartagena — Spain) — Bankia SA v Juan Carlos Marí Merino, Juan Pérez Gavilán, María Concepción Marí Merino
      (Case C-109/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices - Loan agreement secured by a mortgage - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Revaluation of immovable property prior to its sale by auction - Validity of the enforceable instrument - Article 11 - Adequate and effective means to combat unfair commercial practices - National court prohibited from assessing the existence of unfair commercial practices - Impossibility of staying the mortgage enforcement proceedings - Articles 2 and 10 - Code of good conduct - Non-legally binding nature of that code))
      (2018/C 408/18)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 5 de Cartagena

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Bankia SA

         Defendants: Juan Carlos Marí Merino, Juan Pérez Gavilán, María Concepción Marí Merino

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 11 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits the court hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings from reviewing, of its own motion or at the request of the parties, the validity of the enforceable instrument in light of the existence of unfair commercial practices and, in any event, prohibits the court having jurisdiction to rule on the substance regarding the existence of those practices from adopting any interim measures, such as staying the mortgage enforcement proceedings.

                  2.

                  Article 11 of Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not confer a legally binding nature on a code of conduct such as those referred to in Article 10 of that directive.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


title: Case C-466/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz (Austria) lodged on 17 July 2018 — DS v Porsche Inter Auto GmbH & Co KG

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/36

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz (Austria) lodged on 17 July 2018 — DS v Porsche Inter Auto GmbH & Co KG
      (Case C-466/18)
      (2018/C 408/49)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesgericht Linz

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: DS

         Defendant: Porsche Inter Auto GmbH & Co KG

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (1) be interpreted as meaning that the equipment of a vehicle, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 715/2007, is inadmissible if the exhaust gas recirculation valve (i.e. a component that is likely to affect emissions performance) is designed in such a way that the exhaust gas recirculation rate (i.e. the portion of the exhaust gas being recirculated) is regulated in such a way that the valve ensures a low-emission mode only between 15 and 33 degrees Celsius and only below an altitude of 1,000 m, and, outside this temperature window, per 10 degrees Celsius, and above an altitude of 1,000 m, per 250 metres of altitude, the rate decreases in a linear way down to zero, meaning that NOx emissions increase beyond the limits of Regulation No 715/2007?

                  2.

                  Is it relevant to the assessment of Question 1 whether the equipment referred to in Question 1 is necessary to protect the engine against damage?

                  3.

                  Furthermore, is it relevant to the assessment of Question 2 whether the part of the engine which is to be protected against damage is the exhaust gas recirculation valve?

                  4.

                  Is it relevant to the assessment of Question 1 whether the equipment of the vehicle referred to in Question 1 was already installed when the vehicle was produced or whether the regulation of the exhaust gas recirculation valve described in Question 1 is to be installed in the vehicle by way of a repair within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees? (2)

                  5.

                  Must Article 3(6) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees be interpreted as meaning that, when a contract for the purchase of a vehicle has been concluded under which a vehicle is to be supplied which must comply with statutory (EU-law) provisions and such vehicle has been installed with a ‘switch logic’ (i.e. is regulated in such a way that when the vehicle is started it is in mode 1, and if the software detects a test situation — i.e. the operation of the vehicle in the framework of the New European Drive Cycle (NEDC) — the vehicle remains in mode 1 (NEDC), but if the software detects the movement of the vehicle outside the tolerance levels of the NEDC (deviations from the speed profile of +/- 2 km/h or +/- 1s), the vehicle switches to mode 0 (drive mode), in which the exhaust gas recirculation valve is regulated in such a way that the limits of Regulation No 715/2007 can no longer be met, whereby this method of regulation occurs so promptly that as a result the vehicle is essentially operated only in mode 0), this does not constitute a minor breach of contract?

         (1)  OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1.

         (2)  OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12.


title: Case C-114/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of the Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha (Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain) — Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Delimitation — Discretion of the Member States)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/17

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission
      (Case C-114/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of the Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha (Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain) - Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms - Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Delimitation - Discretion of the Member States))
      (2018/C 408/19)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.


title: Case C-514/18 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2018 by the Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 in Case T-72/17, Gabriele Schmid v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/37

      Appeal brought on 6 August 2018 by the Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 in Case T-72/17, Gabriele Schmid v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      (Case C-514/18 P)
      (2018/C 408/50)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (represented by: I. Hödl and S. Schoeller, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Gabriele Schmid, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  (a)

                  set aside the judgment under appeal delivered by the General Court (Ninth Chamber) on 7 June 2018 in Case T-72/17, in so far as the General Court upheld the action in respect of the principal plea in law and annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2016 (Case R 1768/2015-4), and itself give judgment in the matter; in the alternative

                  (b)

                  set aside the judgment under appeal delivered by the General Court (Ninth Chamber) on 7 June 2018 in Case T-72/17, in so far as the General Court upheld the action in respect of the principal plea in law and annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2016 (Case R 1768/2015-4), and refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision;

                  (c)

                  order the applicant at first instance, Ms Gabriele Schmid, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      This appeal is brought by the appellant against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 in Case T-72/17, EU:T:2018:335, concerning an action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2016 (Case R 1768/2015-4), concerning revocation proceedings between Ms Schmid and the Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark, on the ground that that judgment infringes Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) (now Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001).
      The appeal is based on two grounds: infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) and of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(2) of Regulation 2017/1001).
      By its first ground of appeal, which is divided into four parts, the appellant claims specifically that the General Court erred in law in assessing the use of a protected geographical indication registered as an individual trade mark in accordance with its essential function, in requiring the trade mark to identify the producer and in omitting the case-law on the function of individual trade marks as indications of quality which contain a protected geographical indication and on the use of the trade mark by the members of the licensee.
      By its second ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in applying Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(2) of Regulation 2017/1001), in particular in assessing the lawful use made of the EU trade mark by third parties, namely the association consisting of its members, and attributing that use to the proprietor of the mark.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version), OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case C-358/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — UBS Europe SE, formerly UBS (Luxembourg) SA, Alain Hondequin and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 2004/39/EC — Article 54(1) and (3) — Scope of the obligation of professional secrecy on national financial supervisory authorities — Finding of the absence of good repute — Cases covered by criminal law — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 47 and 48 — Rights of the defence — Access to the file)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/5

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — UBS Europe SE, formerly UBS (Luxembourg) SA, Alain Hondequin and Others
      (Case C-358/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2004/39/EC - Article 54(1) and (3) - Scope of the obligation of professional secrecy on national financial supervisory authorities - Finding of the absence of good repute - Cases covered by criminal law - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 47 and 48 - Rights of the defence - Access to the file))
      (2018/C 408/03)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour administrative

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: UBS Europe SE, formerly UBS (Luxembourg) SA, Alain Hondequin and Others

         Other parties to the proceedings: DV, EU, Commission de surveillance du secteur financier (CSSF), Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 54 of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that

                  —

                  the phrase ‘cases covered by criminal law’ in paragraphs 1 and 3 of that article does not cover the situation in which the authorities established by the Member States for the purpose of fulfilling the functions set out in that directive adopt a measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in prohibiting a person from holding a post as director or any other post subject to accreditation in an undertaking supervised by that regulator and ordering him to resign from all related posts at the earliest opportunity, on the ground that that person no longer fulfils the requirement of good repute provided for in Article 9 of that directive, which is part of the measures that the competent authorities are required to take when exercising the powers attributed to them under Title II of that directive. That provision, in providing that the obligation of professional secrecy may exceptionally be disregarded in such cases, covers the communication or use of confidential information for the purpose of conducting proceedings or imposing sanctions in accordance with national criminal law;

                  —

                  the obligation of professional secrecy provided for in paragraph 1 of that article, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be guaranteed and implemented in such a way as to reconcile it with the rights of the defence. Accordingly, it is for the competent national court, when a competent authority invokes that obligation in order to refuse to disclose documents in its possession that are not in the file concerning the person who is the subject of a measure adversely affecting him, to ascertain whether that information is objectively connected to the complaints upheld against him and, if this should be the case, to weigh up the interest of the person in question in having access to the information necessary for him to be in a position to exercise fully his rights of defence and the interests in connection with maintaining the confidentiality of the information covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, before taking a decision whether to communicate each of the requested pieces of information.

         (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


title: Case C-373/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 — Agria Polska sp. z o.o., Agria Chemicals Poland sp. z o.o., Agria Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH, Star Agro Analyse und Handels GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Rejection of a complaint by the European Commission — Lack of Union interest)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/27

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 — Agria Polska sp. z o.o., Agria Chemicals Poland sp. z o.o., Agria Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH, Star Agro Analyse und Handels GmbH v European Commission
      (Case C-373/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Competition - Rejection of a complaint by the European Commission - Lack of Union interest))
      (2018/C 408/34)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

         Appellants: Agria Polska sp. z o.o., Agria Chemicals Poland sp. z o.o., Agria Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH, Star Agro Analyse und Handels GmbH (represented by: P. Graczyk, adwokat, and W. Rocławski, radca prawny)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski and A. Dawes, Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Agria Polska sp. z o.o., Agria Chemicals Poland sp. z o.o. and Agria Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders Star Agro Analyse und Handels GmbH to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-233/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Portugal v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Portugal — Direct payments — POSEI programme — Exceeding of ceilings — Payment delays — First subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 885/2006 — Double financial correction — Rights of the defence — Proportionality)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/51

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Portugal v Commission
      (Case T-233/17) (1)

      ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Portugal - Direct payments - POSEI programme - Exceeding of ceilings - Payment delays - First subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 885/2006 - Double financial correction - Rights of the defence - Proportionality))
      (2018/C 408/65)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Parties

         Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, D. Bianchi and B. Rechena, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 766 final of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from European Union financing certain expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic under the ‘POSEI — specific supply arrangements’ programme and ‘direct payments pertaining to the 2010 marketing year’.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.


title: Case C-448/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — EOS KSI Slovensko s. r. o. v Ján Danko, Margita Danková (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer credit agreement — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Article 4(2) and Article 5 — Obligation to draft terms in plain intelligible language — Article 7 — Actions brought before the courts by persons or organisations having a legitimate interest in protecting consumers against the use of unfair terms — National law making the possibility for a consumer protection association to intervene in the proceedings subject to the consumer’s consent — Consumer credit — Directive 87/102/EEC — Article 4(2) — Obligation to indicate the annual percentage rate in the written agreement — Agreement containing only a mathematical formula for calculating the annual percentage rate without the information necessary to make that calculation)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/27

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — EOS KSI Slovensko s. r. o. v Ján Danko, Margita Danková
      (Case C-448/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer credit agreement - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Article 4(2) and Article 5 - Obligation to draft terms in plain intelligible language - Article 7 - Actions brought before the courts by persons or organisations having a legitimate interest in protecting consumers against the use of unfair terms - National law making the possibility for a consumer protection association to intervene in the proceedings subject to the consumer’s consent - Consumer credit - Directive 87/102/EEC - Article 4(2) - Obligation to indicate the annual percentage rate in the written agreement - Agreement containing only a mathematical formula for calculating the annual percentage rate without the information necessary to make that calculation))
      (2018/C 408/35)
      Language of the case: Slovak

         Referring court

      Krajský súd v Prešove

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: EOS KSI Slovensko s. r. o.

         Defendants: Ján Danko, Margita Danková

         Intervener: Združenie na ochranu občana spotrebiteľa HOOS

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read together with the principle of equivalence, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prevents a consumer protection organisation from intervening, in the interests of the consumer, in proceedings seeking an order for payment concerning an individual consumer and to lodge an objection in the absence of a challenge to that order by the consumer if that legislation in fact subjects intervention by consumer associations in disputes falling within the scope of Union law to less favourable conditions than those applicable to disputes exclusively within the scope of national law, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

                  2.

                  Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that in the main proceedings, which, although providing, at the stage at which the order for payment is made against the consumer, for an assessment of the unfair nature of the terms in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, first, entrusts the power to grant that order to an administrative officer of a court who is not a magistrate and, second, provides for a period of 15 days within which to lodge a statement of opposition and requires that the latter contain reasons on the substance, where there is no provision for such an assessment by the court of its own motion at the stage of enforcement of that order, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

                  3.

                  Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, where a consumer credit agreement does not mention the annual percentage rate of charge and contains only a mathematical formula for the calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge without the information necessary to make that calculation and, second, does not mention the rate of interest, such a fact is decisive evidence in the assessment undertaken by the national court concerned as to whether the term of that agreement relating to the total cost of the credit is drafted in plain intelligible language, within the meaning of that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.


title: Case C-466/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento — Italy) — Chiara Motter v Provincia autonoma di Trento (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Public sector — Secondary school teachers — Employment of fixed-term workers as career civil servants through recruitment based on qualification — Determination of the period of service deemed accrued — Account taken only in part of periods of service completed under fixed-term contracts)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/28

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento — Italy) — Chiara Motter v Provincia autonoma di Trento
      (Case C-466/17) (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 4 - Public sector - Secondary school teachers - Employment of fixed-term workers as career civil servants through recruitment based on qualification - Determination of the period of service deemed accrued - Account taken only in part of periods of service completed under fixed-term contracts))
      (2018/C 408/36)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale di Trento

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Chiara Motter

         Defendant: Provincia autonoma di Trento

         Operative part of the judgment

      Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed 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 not precluding, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which for the purpose of classifying a worker in a salary grade at the time of his recruitment on the basis of qualifications as a career civil servant, takes full account only of the first four years of service completed under fixed-term contracts, only two thirds of subsequent periods of service being taken into consideration.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-328/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BBQLOUMI — Prior EU collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Rejection of the opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/52

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)
      (Case T-328/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BBQLOUMI - Prior EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Rejection of the opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 408/67)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, V. Marsland, Solicitor, and S. Baran, Barrister)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: D. Dimitrova, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2017 (Case R 497/2016-4), concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and M. J. Dairies.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case C-438/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2018 — European Commission v French Republic, IFP Énergies nouvelles (Appeal — State aid — State aid scheme implemented by France — Unlimited State guarantee conferred on the Institut français du pétrole (IFP) by the grant of the status of publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment (EPIC) — Decision declaring that measure as partially not constituting State aid and as partially constituting State aid compatible with the Internal market, subject to certain conditions — Concept of ‘aid scheme’ — Presumption of the existence of an advantage — Burden and standard of proof)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/6

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2018 — European Commission v French Republic, IFP Énergies nouvelles
      (Case C-438/16 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - State aid - State aid scheme implemented by France - Unlimited State guarantee conferred on the Institut français du pétrole (IFP) by the grant of the status of publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment (EPIC) - Decision declaring that measure as partially not constituting State aid and as partially constituting State aid compatible with the Internal market, subject to certain conditions - Concept of ‘aid scheme’ - Presumption of the existence of an advantage - Burden and standard of proof))
      (2018/C 408/04)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents), IFP Énergies nouvelles (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, avocats)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 May 2016, France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission (T-479/11 and T-157/12, EU:T:2016:320), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court annulled Article 1(3), (4) and (5) and Articles 2 to 12 of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08));

                  2.

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

                  3.

                  Reserves the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case T-457/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Medisana v EUIPO (happy life) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark happy life — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/54

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Medisana v EUIPO (happy life)
      (Case T-457/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark happy life - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 408/69)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Medisana AG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2017 (Case R 1965/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign happy life as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Medisana AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.


title: Case C-176/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich — Poland) — Profi Credit Polska S.A. w Bielsku Białej v Mariusz Wawrzosek (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 2008/48/EC — Order for payment procedure founded on a promissory note that secures the obligations arising from a consumer credit agreement)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/20

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich — Poland) — Profi Credit Polska S.A. w Bielsku Białej v Mariusz Wawrzosek
      (Case C-176/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 2008/48/EC - Order for payment procedure founded on a promissory note that secures the obligations arising from a consumer credit agreement))
      (2018/C 408/24)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Profi Credit Polska S.A. w Bielsku Białej

         Defendant: Mariusz Wawrzosek

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits issue of an order for payment founded on a valid promissory note that secures a claim arising from a consumer credit agreement, where the court dealing with an application for an order for payment does not have the power to examine whether the terms of that agreement are unfair, if the detailed rules for exercising the right to lodge an objection against such an order do not enable observance of the rights which the consumer derives from that directive to be ensured.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.


title: Case C-555/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — 2M-Locatel A/S v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8528 71 13 and 8528 71 90 — Apparatus capable of receiving, decoding and processing live TV signals transmitted using internet technology)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/30

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — 2M-Locatel A/S v Skatteministeriet
      (Case C-555/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 8528 71 13 and 8528 71 90 - Apparatus capable of receiving, decoding and processing live TV signals transmitted using internet technology))
      (2018/C 408/39)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Østre Landsret

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: 2M-Locatel A/S

         Defendant: Skatteministeriet

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that apparatus capable of receiving, decoding and processing live TV signals transmitted using internet technology, such as the apparatus at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified under subheading 8528 71 90 thereof, provided that they do not incorporate a video tuner or a ‘television tuner’, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.