title: Case C-132/19 P: Appeal brought on 15 February 2019 by Groupe Canal + against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-873/16 Groupe Canal + v Commission

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/33

      Appeal brought on 15 February 2019 by Groupe Canal + against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-873/16 Groupe Canal + v Commission
      (Case C-132/19 P)
      (2019/C 131/38)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellants: Groupe Canal + (represented by P. Wilhelm, P. Gassenbach and O. de Juvigny, avocats)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Union des producteurs de cinéma (UPC), C More Entertainment AB, European Film Agency Directors — EFADs, Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court on 12 December 2018 in Case T-873/16 in so far as it dismissed the action brought by Groupe Canal + for annulment of Commission Decision of 26 July 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40023 — Cross-border access to pay-TV), and in so far as it ordered the appellant to pay the costs;

                  —

                  Annul the Commission Decision of 26 July 2016 in the abovementioned Case AT.40023;

                  —

                  Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By its first ground of appeal, GCP maintains that the General Court was not entitled to rule out the existence of misuse of powers, consisting for the Commission of putting an end to geo-blocking, by means of commitments, when Regulation (EU) 2018/302 (1) expressly provides that audiovisual content may be the subject of geographical restrictions.
      By its ground of appeal, GCP claims that the General Court committed a procedural error and infringed the audi alteram partem principle, since none of the arguments relating to the applicability of Article 101(3) TFEU was discussed by the parties to the proceedings. Consequently, the General Court did not observe GCP’s rights of defence.
      By its third ground of appeal, GCP submits that the General Court committed an error of law relating to infringement of its obligation to state reasons by failing to address the plea in law alleging that the Commission failed to take into account the French economic and legal context to which the clauses at issue belonged. The judgment is based on an inaccurate premiss and disregards the specific economic and legal context of the film industry and is contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice which has expressly held that the clauses at issue may be perfectly valid in the film industry.
      By its fourth ground of appeal, GCP argues that the General Court erred in law concerning the interpretation of Article 9 of Regulation No 1/2003 (2) and point 128 of the Commission notice on best practices for the conduct of proceedings concerning Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, leading to infringement of the principles of proportionality and respect for the rights of third parties. The competition concerns expressed in the Commission’s preliminary assessment related only to the territories of the United Kingdom and Ireland and the competition situation concerning France was not even examined. Furthermore, the General Court erred in law in finding, first, that the Commission decision did not constitute an interference in the contractual freedom of GCP and, second, that it did not affect GCP’s ability to bring an action before a national court in order to establish the compatibility of the relevant clauses with Article 101(1) TFEU, when it follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice that a national court may not disregard a decision taken on the basis of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the accompanying preliminary assessment.

         (1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2018 on addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market and amending Regulations (EC) No 2006/2004 and (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC (OJ 2018 L 601, p. 1).

         (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-160/19P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by the Comune di Milano against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-167/13 Comune di Milano v European Commission

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/34

      Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by the Comune di Milano against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-167/13 Comune di Milano v European Commission
      (Case C-160/19P)
      (2019/C 131/39)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Comune di Milano (represented by: A. Mandarano, E. Barbagiovanni, S. Grassani, lawyers)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 in Case T-167/13, Comune di Milano v Commission;

                  —

                  annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1225 of 19 December 2012 regarding injections of capital by SEA SpA into SEA Handling SpA (Case SA.21420 (C 14/10) (ex NN 25/10));

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures in Case T-167/13 R.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the Comune di Milano against the aforementioned decision.
      In support of its appeal, the Comune di Milano relies on four grounds of appeal, which all relate to infringement by the General Court of Article 107 TFEU and the absence, in the present case, of measures which may be classified as State aid.
      By its first ground, the Comune di Milano, first, disputes that the alleged State aid measures made use of ‘state resources’ and, second, complains that the imputability ‘test’ developed by the General Court is incompatible with the principles established in Community case-law.
      By its second ground of appeal, the Comune di Milano claims that the General Court infringed the principles concerning evidence of imputability, both from the perspective of unequal treatment as regards evidence and lack of evidence over an extended period of time.
      By its third ground of appeal, the Comune di Milano alleges distortion of the facts and evidence by the General Court in the assessment of the evidence relied on by the Commission in support of its claim that the measures in question were imputable to the Comune di Milano.
      By its fourth ground of appeal, the Comune di Milano disputes, on various grounds, all the assessments made by the General Court relating to the application, by the Commission, of the private investor in a market economy test (known as the Market Economy Investor Principle ‘MEIP’) and the findings set out in the judgment in that regard.


title: Case C-167/19 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2018 in Case T-683/15, Freistaat Bayern v European Commission

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/35

      Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2018 in Case T-683/15, Freistaat Bayern v European Commission
      (Case C-167/19 P)
      (2019/C 131/40)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings: Freistaat Bayern

         Form of order sought

      The Commission claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal;

                  —

                  declare unfounded the first plea in law of the action before the General Court;

                  —

                  refer the case back to the General Court in respect of the remaining pleas in law;

                  —

                  order the applicant in the proceedings at first instance to pay the costs of those proceedings and of the appeal, or, alternatively, in the event that the case is referred back to the General Court, reserve the decision on the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal for the final judgment.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

         First ground of appeal:

      In paragraphs 60 to 67 of the judgment under appeal, when defining the requirements for the content of an opening decision, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 (1) and the case-law of the EU judicature relating to those provisions: the source of financing of aid is stated in the opening decision only exceptionally and in specific circumstances.

         Second ground of appeal:

      In paragraphs 53 to 58 and 62 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court misinterpreted the opening decision and thereby failed to state reasons and respond to the Commission’s arguments; the opening decision in fact includes budgetary funding.

         Third ground of appeal:

      In paragraphs 70 and 71 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and the case-law of the EU judicature relating to that provision, in so far as it holds that the rights of participation of third parties are essential procedural requirements within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

         Fourth ground of appeal:

      In paragraphs 72 to 75 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court incorrectly interpreted the right of participation under Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 together with the case-law of the EU judicature on the consequences of infringing a right of participation, in so far as it finds that an observation of the parties involved on the question whether budgetary funding constitutes State resources could have had an effect on the outcome of the proceedings. In that regard, the General Court also misinterprets the concept of State resources under Article 107(1) TFEU and the concept of existing aid under Article 108(1) TFEU and distorts the facts set out in the decision at issue and adduced before it and fails to deal with the arguments put forward before it by the Commission.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


title: Case C-171/19 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2018 in Joined Cases T-722/15, T-723/15 and T-724/15, Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns e.V. and Others v European Commission

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/36

      Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2018 in Joined Cases T-722/15, T-723/15 and T-724/15, Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns e.V. and Others v European Commission
      (Case C-171/19 P)
      (2019/C 131/41)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns e.V., Genossenschaftsverband Bayern e.V. and Verband der Bayerischen Privaten Milchwirtschaft e.V.

         Form of order sought

      The Commission claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal;

                  —

                  declare unfounded the first plea in law of the action before the General Court;

                  —

                  refer the case back to the General Court in respect of the remaining pleas in law;

                  —

                  order the applicants in the proceedings at first instance to pay the costs of those proceedings and of the appeal, or, alternatively, in the event that the case is referred back to the General Court, reserve the decision on the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal for the final judgment.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

         First ground of appeal:

      In paragraphs 56 to 64 of the judgment under appeal, when defining the requirements for the content of an opening decision, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 (1) and the case-law of the EU judicature relating to those provisions: the source of financing of aid is stated in the opening decision only exceptionally and in specific circumstances.

         Second ground of appeal:

      In paragraphs 47 to 53 and 56 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court misinterpreted the opening decision and thereby failed to state reasons and respond to the Commission’s arguments; the opening decision in fact includes budgetary funding.

         Third ground of appeal:

      In paragraphs 66 to 68 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and the case-law of the EU judicature relating to that provision, in so far as it holds that the rights of participation of third parties are essential procedural requirements within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

         Fourth ground of appeal:

      In paragraphs 70 to 72 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court incorrectly interpreted the right of participation under Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 together with the case-law of the EU judicature on the consequences of infringing a right of participation, in so far as it finds that an observation of the parties involved on the question whether budgetary funding constitutes State resources could have had an effect on the outcome of the proceedings. In that regard, the General Court also misinterprets the concept of State resources under Article 107(1) TFEU and distorts the facts set out in the decision at issue and adduced before it and fails to deal with the arguments put forward before it by the Commission.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


title: Case T-292/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2019 — Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Public supply contracts — Tender procedure — Conflict of interests — Duty of diligence — Loss of opportunity — Compensation)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2019 — Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission
      (Case T-292/15) (1)

      (Non-contractual liability - Public supply contracts - Tender procedure - Conflict of interests - Duty of diligence - Loss of opportunity - Compensation)
      (2019/C 131/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Vakakis kai Synergates — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE Meleton, formerly Vakakis International — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, E. Georgieva and L. Baumgart, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought under Article 268 TFEU, seeking compensation in respect of the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of irregularities committed by the Commission in the context of the tendering procedure ‘Consolidation of the Food Safety System in Albania’ (EuropeAid/129820/C/SER/AL).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Fixes the amount of compensation to be paid by the European Commission to Vakakis kai Synergates — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE Meleton in accordance with the judgment of 28 February 2018, Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission (T-292/15), at EUR 234 353, together with default interest with effect from 28 February 2018 until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its principal refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

                  2.

                     Orders the Commission to pay the costs incurred with respect to the proceedings giving rise to the judgment of 28 February 2018, Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission (T-292/15);

                  3.

                     Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred with respect to the proceedings subsequent to the judgment of 28 February 2018, Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission (T-292/15).

         (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-679/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2019 — Athletic Club v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain professional football clubs — Preferential tax rate on the income of the clubs authorised to operate as non-profit organisations — Decision declaring that the aid is incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Infra-State measure — Selective nature — Distortion of competition — Effect on trade between Member States — Alteration to existing aid — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2019 — Athletic Club v Commission
      (Case T-679/16) (1)

      (State aid - Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain professional football clubs - Preferential tax rate on the income of the clubs authorised to operate as non-profit organisations - Decision declaring that the aid is incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Infra-State measure - Selective nature - Distortion of competition - Effect on trade between Member States - Alteration to existing aid - Duty to state reasons)
      (2019/C 131/44)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Athletic Club (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: E. Lucas Murillo de la Cueva and J.M. Luís Carrasco, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Articles 1, 4 and 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2391 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for certain football clubs (OJ 2016 L 357, p.1), in so far as they concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Athletic Club to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.


title: Case T-903/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — RE v Commission (Personal data — Protection of natural persons with respect to the processing of their data — Right of access to those data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Refusal to grant access — Actions for annulment — Email referring to an earlier partial refusal of access without carrying out a re-examination — Concept of a challengeable act within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU — Concept of a purely confirmatory act — Applicability to access to personal data — Substantial new facts — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — RE v Commission
      (Case T-903/16) (1)

      (Personal data - Protection of natural persons with respect to the processing of their data - Right of access to those data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Refusal to grant access - Actions for annulment - Email referring to an earlier partial refusal of access without carrying out a re-examination - Concept of a challengeable act within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU - Concept of a purely confirmatory act - Applicability to access to personal data - Substantial new facts - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2019/C 131/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: RE (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the note of the Director of the Security Directorate of the Directorate-General for Human Resources of the Commission of 12 October 2016 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s request for access to some of his personal data.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the note of 12 October 2016 of the director of the Security Directorate of the Directorate-General for Human Resources of the Commission, in so far as it rejects the request of 21 September 2016 of RE for access to some of his personal data;

                  2.

                     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Case T-91/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — L v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Sick leave — Sick leave spent elsewhere than at the place of employment — Unauthorised absence — Article 60 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of care — Principle of good administration)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — L v Parliament
      (Case T-91/17) (1)

      (Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Sick leave - Sick leave spent elsewhere than at the place of employment - Unauthorised absence - Article 60 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of care - Principle of good administration)
      (2019/C 131/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: L (represented by: I. Coutant Peyre, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Windisch and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 31 August 2016 concerning unauthorised absences of the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders L to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.


title: Case T-366/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Poland v Commission (ERDF — Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project — Article 41(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Assessment of whether a major project is consistent with the priorities of the operational programme — Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Time limit exceeded)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Poland v Commission
      (Case T-366/17) (1)

      (ERDF - Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project - Article 41(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Assessment of whether a major project is consistent with the priorities of the operational programme - Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Time limit exceeded)
      (2019/C 131/47)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, A. Kyratsou and M. Siekierzyńska, Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1904 final of 24 March 2017 refusing to confirm to the Republic of Poland a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘Starting production of a next-generation diesel engine by Volkswagen Motor Polska’ in the context of the Priority Axis IV of operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.


title: Case T-34/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Giove Gas v EUIPO — Primagaz (KALON AL CENTRO DELLA FAMIGLIA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark KALON AL CENTRO DELLA FAMIGLIA — Earlier EU word mark CALOON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Giove Gas v EUIPO — Primagaz (KALON AL CENTRO DELLA FAMIGLIA)
      (Case T-34/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark KALON AL CENTRO DELLA FAMIGLIA - Earlier EU word mark CALOON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 131/48)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Giove Gas Srl (Tarquinia, Italy) (represented by: A. Bergonzini and F. Dinelli, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 (Case R 1271/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz and Giove Gas.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Giove Gas Srl to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.


title: Case T-63/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Torro Entertainment v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (TORRO Grande MEAT IN STYLE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark TORRO Grande MEAT IN STYLE — Earlier EU word marks TORO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Duty of care — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/43

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Torro Entertainment v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (TORRO Grande MEAT IN STYLE)
      (Case T-63/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark TORRO Grande MEAT IN STYLE - Earlier EU word marks TORO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Duty of care - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 131/49)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Torro Entertainment (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Kostov, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 (Case R 1776/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Osborne and Torro Entertainment.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Torro Entertainment Ltd to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-123/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Bayer Intellectual Property v EUIPO (Representation of a heart) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a heart — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Bayer Intellectual Property v EUIPO (Representation of a heart)
      (Case T-123/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a heart - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 131/50)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 (Case R 145/2017-1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a heart as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Case T-524/16 R: Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 15 February 2019 — Aresu v Commission (Interim measures — Civil Service — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 — Reduced number of days of annual leave — Replacement of travelling time by home leave — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/45

      Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 15 February 2019 — Aresu v Commission
      (Case T-524/16 R)
      (Interim measures - Civil Service - Officials - Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 - Reduced number of days of annual leave - Replacement of travelling time by home leave - Application for interim measures - No urgency)
      (2019/C 131/52)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Antonio Aresu (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, the suspension of operation of the decision reducing the number of the applicant’s additional leave days from five to two and a half days, on the basis of Article 7 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), and, secondly, the adoption of interim measures to enable the applicant to continue to benefit, on a provisional basis, from the same number of additional leave days that he enjoyed, in the form of travelling time, before 1 January 2014, with retroactive effect from 1 January 2014 until the decision in the main proceedings is delivered or, if prior to the delivery of that decision, until the retirement date of the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                     The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-768/17: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Comprojecto Projectos e Construções and Others v ECB (Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Supervision of credit institutions — Unlawful acts allegedly committed by certain Portuguese credit institutions — Implied rejection of the request to take action made to the ECB — Manifest inadmissibility in part — Manifest lack of jurisdiction in part — Action in part manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/46

      Order of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Comprojecto Projectos e Construções and Others v ECB
      (Case T-768/17) (1)

      (Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages - Economic and monetary policy - Supervision of credit institutions - Unlawful acts allegedly committed by certain Portuguese credit institutions - Implied rejection of the request to take action made to the ECB - Manifest inadmissibility in part - Manifest lack of jurisdiction in part - Action in part manifestly unfounded in law)
      (2019/C 131/53)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Parties

         Applicants: Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal), Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon), Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon), Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon) (represented by: M. Ribeiro, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta and P. Ferreira Jorge, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      First, application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the ECB unlawfully failed to take action against a Portuguese credit institution in the context of preventing the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering, secondly, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the ECB’s decision not to take action and, thirdly, application for compensation under Article 268 TFEU in respect of the loss and harm which the applicants allegedly sustained as a result of that failure to take action.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções, Lda, Mr Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo, Mr Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo and Ms Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo are ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case T-817/17: Order of the General Court of 8 February 2019 — Schokker v EASA (Civil service — Contract staff — AESA - Recruitment — Selection procedure - Inclusion of the applicant on the reserve list — Withdrawal of the offer of employment made to the applicant — Liability — No unlawful conduct by the EASA — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/47

      Order of the General Court of 8 February 2019 — Schokker v EASA
      (Case T-817/17) (1)

      (Civil service - Contract staff - AESA - Recruitment - Selection procedure - Inclusion of the applicant on the reserve list - Withdrawal of the offer of employment made to the applicant - Liability - No unlawful conduct by the EASA - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
      (2019/C 131/54)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Boudewijn Schokker (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (represented by: S. Rostren and F. Pavesi, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application under Article 270 TFUE for compensation for damage which the applicant claims to have suffered by reason of the blameworthy conduct of the EASA during the selection procedure for the recruitment of a member of the contract agent.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Mr Boudewijn Schokker is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.


title: Case T-125/18: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Associazione Granosalus v Commission (Actions for annulment — Plant-protection products — Substance active ‘glyphosate’ — Renewal of inclusion in the annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 — Act not of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/48

      Order of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Associazione Granosalus v Commission
      (Case T-125/18) (1)

      (Actions for annulment - Plant-protection products - Substance active ‘glyphosate’ - Renewal of inclusion in the annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 - Act not of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 131/55)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Associazione Nazionale Granosalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) (Foggia, Italy) (represented by: G. Dalfino, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, D. Bianchi, G. Koleva and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 of 12 December 2017 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2017 L 333, p. 10).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is to be dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     There is no longer any need to give a ruling on the applications for leave to intervene by Helm AG, Monsanto Europe NV/SA, Monsanto Company, Nufarm GmbH & Co., Nufarm, Albaugh Europe Sàrl, Albaugh UK Ltd, Albaugh TKI d.o.o. and Barclay Chemicals Manfuacturing Ltd.

                  3.

                     Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

                  4.

                     Helm, Monsanto Europe, Monsanto, Nufarm GmbH & Co. KG, Nufarm, Albaugh Europe, Albaugh UK, Albaugh TKI and Barclay Chemicals Manufacturing are each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.


title: Case T-258/18: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Brunke v Commission (Action for failure to act — Deadline for bringing an action — Starting point — No invitation to act — Second invitation to act — Manifest inadmissibility — Application of a declaratory nature — Application for interim measures — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/50

      Order of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Brunke v Commission
      (Case T-258/18) (1)

      (Action for failure to act - Deadline for bringing an action - Starting point - No invitation to act - Second invitation to act - Manifest inadmissibility - Application of a declaratory nature - Application for interim measures - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
      (2019/C 131/58)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Lothar Brunke (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Schniebel, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Principally, an application for a declaration establishing ‘the discriminatory effect’ of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) and, in the alternative, first, an application, in essence, for an interim measure to be directed against the Commission and, secondly, an application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to follow up on the applicant’s letters of 6 June and 27 December 2017.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed in part due to the Court’s manifest lack of jurisdiction to hear the action and in part because it is manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                     There is no longer any need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.

                  3.

                     Mr Lothar Brunke shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

                  4.

                     The Council shall bear its own costs relating to its application to intervene.

                  5.

                     The Parliament shall bear its own costs relating to its application to intervene.

         (1)  OJ CC 276, 6.8.2018.


title: Case T-376/18: Order of the General Court of 8 February 2019 — Front Polisario v Council (Action for annulment — International agreements — Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco — Decision authorising the opening of negotiations between the European Union and Morocco for the purpose of amending the partnership agreement — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/50

      Order of the General Court of 8 February 2019 — Front Polisario v Council
      (Case T-376/18) (1)

      (Action for annulment - International agreements - Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco - Decision authorising the opening of negotiations between the European Union and Morocco for the purpose of amending the partnership agreement - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 131/59)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia el-Hamra et du Rio de oro (Front Polisario) (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and F. Naert, Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 for annulment of the Council’s decision of 16 April 2018, authorising the opening of negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco for the purpose of amending the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco and concluding a protocol implementing that agreement.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the French Republic and the European Commission.

                  3.

                     The Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia-el-Hamra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

                  4.

                     The Commission and the French Republic shall bear their own respective costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.


title: Case T-429/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2019 — BRF and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos v Commission (Application for interim measures — Public health — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 — Amendment of the lists of third-country establishments from which imports of specified products of animal origin are permitted, regarding certain establishments in Brazil — No urgency — Weighing-up of competing interests)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/51

      Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2019 — BRF and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos v Commission
      (Case T-429/18 R)
      (Application for interim measures - Public health - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 - Amendment of the lists of third-country establishments from which imports of specified products of animal origin are permitted, regarding certain establishments in Brazil - No urgency - Weighing-up of competing interests)
      (2019/C 131/60)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: BRF SA (Itajaí, Brazil), SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos SA (Itajaí) (represented by: D. Arts and G. van Thuyne, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, B. Eggers and B. Hofstötter, Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, principally, suspension of the application of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 of 8 May 2018 amending the lists of third-country establishments from which imports of specified products of animal origin are permitted, regarding certain establishments from Brazil (OJ 2018 L 118, p. 1), either until a definitive ruling has been given on the action brought by the applicants under Article 263 TFEU, or until such date as determined by the President of the General Court, and, in the alternative, suspension of the application of that regulation in so far as it concerns the applicants’ establishments included in (i) the list of establishments authorised to import meat from poultry and lagomorphs from Brazil (Section II), (ii) the list of establishments authorised to import minced meat, meat preparations and mechanically separated meat from Brazil (Section V) which have generated no more than two notifications via the rapid alert system for food and feed between 1 March 2017 and 19 April 2018 or (iii) the list of establishments authorised to import meat products from Brazil (Section VI), or an order for any other or additional measure which the President of the Court may consider necessary or appropriate

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                     The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-511/18: Action brought on 4 February 2019 — XH v Commission

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/52

      Action brought on 4 February 2019 — XH v Commission
      (Case T-511/18)
      (2019/C 131/61)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: XH (represented by: E. Auleytner, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of 13 November 2017 (IA no 25-2017) concerning non-inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list of the promoted officials in 2017;

                  —

                  annul the decision of 7 June 2018 of the Appointing Authority in response to the complaint filed by the applicant;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 20 000 for non-material loss and EUR 45 000 for material loss;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the 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, disputing the content of her career development reports (CDRs) as a basis of the promotion exercise at issue and alleging irregularity of the closed promotion procedure in question, impossibility and illegality of a posteriori regularisation after the closure of the promotion exercise.

                              —

                              The applicant complains that it was impossible to demonstrate that the value judgments could have been differently realised, if the irregular mid-term report had not been taken into account at different stages of the promotion procedure.

                              —

                              The applicant invokes an error of law and the irregularity of the contested promotion procedure: the violation of the terms of Commission Decision C(2013) 8968 final of 16 December 2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the violation of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the absence of actual comparison of the merits.

                              —

                              The applicant further invokes a manifest error of assessment in applying the promotion criteria provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging the impact of irregularity on the contested promotion exercise, taking into account the applicant’s promotion file and her CDRs. This irregularity allegedly led to the exclusion of promotion that could have been otherwise expected, if a correct comparison of merits had been duly performed.


title: Case T-65/19: Action brought on 5 February 2019 — AI v ECDC

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/53

      Action brought on 5 February 2019 — AI v ECDC
      (Case T-65/19)
      (2019/C 131/62)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: AI (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the ECDC of 18 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance of 20 June 2017,

                  —

                  annul the ECDC’s decision of 20 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request of 30 May 2018 for access to the enquiry report;

                  —

                  annul, if need be, the ECDC’s decision of 26 October 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 2 July 2018;

                  —

                  order the ECDC to pay financial compensation evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 40 000, in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law in respect of the contested decision of 18 May 2018 and a single plea in law in respect of the contested decision of 20 June 2018.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, in respect of the contested decision of 18 May 2018, alleging violation of the right to be heard.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, in respect of the contested decision of 18 May 2018, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, in respect of the contested decision of 18 May 2018, alleging a manifest error of assessment and of facts and the violation of Article 86 of the Staff Regulations.

                  4.

                  Single plea in law, in respect of the contested decision of 20 June 2018, alleging the breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 13 of Regulation No 45/2001. (1)

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case T-77/19: Action brought on 9 February 2019 — Alcar Aktiebolag v EUIPO — Alcar Holding (alcar.se)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/54

      Action brought on 9 February 2019 — Alcar Aktiebolag v EUIPO — Alcar Holding (alcar.se)
      (Case T-77/19)
      (2019/C 131/63)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Alcar Aktiebolag (Bromma, Sweden) (represented by: M. Ateva, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alcar Holding GmbH (Wien, Austria)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative word mark alcar.se in colours white and blue — Application for registration No 15 508 583

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2018 in Case R 378/2018-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  stay the proceedings before the General Court until the revocation proceedings against the trade mark of Alcar Holding GmbH have been concluded, and the real scope of protection of the trade mark of Alcar Holding GmbH has been determined;

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Board Appeal in its entirety;

                  —

                  uphold the Opposition Division’s decision in its entirety;

                  —

                  order Alcar Holding GmbH to pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, the Board of Appeal, as well as the General Court.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  The Board of Appeal erroneously extended the scope of protection of the trade mark of Alcar Holding GmbH;

                  —

                  The Board of Appeal made an error in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between the trade marks.


title: Case T-79/19: Action brought on 12 February 2019 — Lantmännen and Lantmännen Agroetanol/Commission

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/55

      Action brought on 12 February 2019 — Lantmännen and Lantmännen Agroetanol/Commission
      (Case T-79/19)
      (2019/C 131/64)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Lantmännen ek för (Stockholm, Sweden), Lantmännen Agroetanol AB (Norrköping, Sweden) (represented by: S. Perván Lindeborg, A. Johansson, lawyers, and R. Bachour, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2019) 743 final of 28 January 2019 on an objection to disclosure submitted by applicants pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ 2011 L 275, p. 29) (Case AT.40054 — Ethanol Benchmarks); and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the rules of law governing the settlement procedure
                  The applicants submit that the legal instruments which govern the settlement procedure should prevent disclosure of the concerned documents. In particular, Articles 10a, 15(1)b and 16a(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004, (1) read together, should be interpreted as limiting disclosure of records from settlement discussions to the settlement submission itself, which may only be accessed under strict conditions.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
                  The applicants submit that the defendant, through its consistent practice of excluding non-papers submitted in the context of settlement discussions from other parties’ access to the file, and through specific assurances to this effect in the context of the settlement discussions, would have made the applicants to entertain justified expectations with regard to the confidential treatment of the documents at issue.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principles of equal treatment and equality of arms.
                  The applicants submit that by disclosing the records of the applicants’ settlement discussions with the defendant to other parties, the defendant would have infringed the principle of equal treatment, by placing settling parties in a worse position than parties that have abandoned settlement discussion. The unwarranted expansion of the non-settling parties’ access to the file would also infringe the principle of equality of arms, by giving them an advantage in the inherently adversarial relationship between suspected co-infringers with regard to future contribution claims.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principle of good administration.
                  The applicants further submit that by permitting the disclosure of the contested information, the decision would allow the defendant to adopt a wholly inconsistent policy, in which the applicants are subjected to considerably less favourable treatment than the addressees of all prior defendants’ decisions. In doing so, the contested decision should be considered in breach of the applicants’ right to have their affairs handled ‘impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time’ by institutions of the European Union such as the defendant, and thus in violation of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that, in the alternative, an incorrect legal categorisation in the statement of reasons was committed.
                  By their fifth plea, which is alternative to the other pleas, the applicants submit that, even if the Court would ultimately agree with the defendant that the contested materials should be disclosed to other undertakings, the contested decision should still be annulled by virtue of errors in the statement of reasons.
                  The defendant has applied Paragraph 35 of the settlement notice to give access to the contested materials. Paragraph 35 only refers to settlement submissions, and not settlement documents, which is the term used in the contested decision. In order to render the statement of reasons internally consistent, the contested decision should be redrafted so as to designate these materials as forming part of the settlement submission.

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18).


title: Case T-101/19: Action brought on 18 February 2019 — Rezon v EUIPO (imot.bg)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/56

      Action brought on 18 February 2019 — Rezon v EUIPO (imot.bg)
      (Case T-101/19)
      (2019/C 131/65)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Parties

         Applicant: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by M. Yordanova-Harizanova, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: application for the EU figurative mark imot.bg — application for registration No 17 203 316

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2018 in Case R 999/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and order registration of the mark at issue;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-726/16: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — VFP v Commission

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/58

      Order of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — VFP v Commission
      (Case T-726/16) (1)

      (2019/C 131/67)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Grand Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.


title: Case T-60/18: Order of the General Court of 12 February 2019 — Hangzhou Lezoo traveling equipment v EUIPO — Promotional Traders (GREEN HERMIT)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/58

      Order of the General Court of 12 February 2019 — Hangzhou Lezoo traveling equipment v EUIPO — Promotional Traders
      (GREEN HERMIT)
      (Case T-60/18) (1)

      (2019/C 131/68)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case T-725/18: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2019 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/59

      Order of the General Court of 15 February 2019 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT)
      (Case T-725/18) (1)

      (2019/C 131/69)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.


title: Case C-161/19: Action brought on 22 February 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/30

      Action brought on 22 February 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
      (Case C-161/19)
      (2019/C 148/28)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Republic of Austria

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, by authorising the springtime hunting of woodcocks in the Land of Lower Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds; (1)

                  —

                  order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action is brought against the authorisation of springtime hunting of woodcocks (Scolopax rusticola) in Lower Austria. Male woodcocks may be hunted during courtship in that Land between 1 March and 15 April, and a maximum number of 1410 (since February 2017: 759) woodcocks may be killed.
      The Commission claims that the legislation in question infringes the prohibition of springtime hunting in Article 7(4) of Directive 2009/147.
      The Republic of Austria contends that the legislation is covered by the derogation in Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147. Under that provision, Member States may derogate inter alia from Article 7(4) of the directive, where there is no other satisfactory solution, in order to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers. In accordance with the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, it is for the Member States to establish that the conditions for its application are met.
      The Commission claims that the Republic of Austria has neither shown that there is no other satisfactory solution within the meaning of the introductory sentence of Article 9(1) nor established that the authorised maximum number of specimens that may be killed meets the requirement of ‘small numbers’ in Article 9(1)(c) of the directive. Autumn hunting appears to be a satisfactory alternative, as non-negligible numbers of woodcocks are also present in the Lower Austrian hunting areas in autumn. The Republic of Austria has not provided any convincing evidence for its assertion that springtime hunting is more considerate towards the population of woodcocks than autumn hunting. In addition, the calculation of the ‘small numbers’ is incorrect, since the Austrian figures are based on the wrong reference population.

         (1)  OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7.


title: Case T-446/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — TK v Parliament (Civil service — Temporary agents — Change in the activities assigned — Concept of concern — Invitation to an interview — Concept of proceedings — Allegation of psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Liability — Non-material damage)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/48

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — TK v Parliament
      (Case T-446/17) (1)

      (Civil service - Temporary agents - Change in the activities assigned - Concept of concern - Invitation to an interview - Concept of proceedings - Allegation of psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Liability - Non-material damage)
      (2019/C 148/45)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially E. Taneva and M. Rantala, acting as Agents, then E. Taneva, C. González Argüelles and D. Boytha, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 26 August 2016 rejecting the applicant’s requests of 28 April 2016 and compensation for non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as well as annulment of the decision of the General Secretary of the Parliament of 26 April 2017, in so far as it rejects the application for compensation of non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant, and compensation for that damage.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     orders TK to bear, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Parliament.

         (1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.


title: Case T-798/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — De Masi and Varoufakis v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Document entitled ‘Responses to questions concerning the interpretation of Article 14.4. of the Statute of the ESCB and the ECB’ — Denial of access — Exception relating to the protection of legal advice — Exception relating to the protection of documents intended for internal use — Overriding public interest)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/49

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — De Masi and Varoufakis v ECB
      (Case T-798/17) (1)

      (Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Document entitled ‘Responses to questions concerning the interpretation of Article 14.4. of the Statute of the ESCB and the ECB’ - Denial of access - Exception relating to the protection of legal advice - Exception relating to the protection of documents intended for internal use - Overriding public interest)
      (2019/C 148/46)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: Fabio De Masi (Hamburg, Germany) and Yanis Varoufakis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: A. Fischer-Lescano, professor)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: T. Filipova and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and by de H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the ECB of 16 October 2017 refusing to grant the applicants access to the document of 23 April 2015 entitled ‘Responses to questions concerning the interpretation of Article 14.4. of the Statute of the ESCB and the ECB’.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     orders Mr Fabio De Masi and Mr Yanis Varoufakis to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

         (1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.


title: Case C-545/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 22 August 2018 — DP, Finanzamt Linz

text:
               27.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/2

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 22 August 2018 — DP, Finanzamt Linz
      (Case C-545/18)
      (2019/C 182/02)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: DP, Finanzamt Linz

         Defendant authorities: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Braunau am Inn, Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land

         Interested parties: Finanzamt Braunau-Ried-Schärding, EO
      The Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) held in its order of 4 April 2019 that the request for a preliminary ruling referred by decision of the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich dated 16 August 2018 is manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case C-710/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2018 — WN v Land Niedersachsen

text:
               27.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/2

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2018 — WN v Land Niedersachsen
      (Case C-710/18)
      (2019/C 182/03)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesarbeitsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: WN

         Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

         Question referred

      Are Article 45(2) TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that in Paragraph 16(2) of the Tarifvertrag für den Öffentlichen Dienst der Länder (the Collective Agreement for the public sector of the Länder; ‘the TV-L’), pursuant to which the relevant professional experience acquired with the last previous employer has a privileged position in the case where an employee is allocated to the steps of a collective pay structure following re-employment as a result of that professional experience being fully acknowledged pursuant to the second sentence of Paragraph 16(2) of the TV-L, whereas only a maximum of three years of relevant professional experience acquired with other employers is taken into account pursuant to the third sentence of Paragraph 16(2) of the TV-L, if that privileged position is required under EU law by clause 4.4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term contracts concluded on 18 March 1999, which is contained in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP?

         (1)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.


title: Case C-794/18 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2018 by Pracsis SPRL, Conceptexpo Project against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2018 in Case T-33/18, Pracsis and Conceptexpo Project v Commission and EACEA

text:
               27.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/3

      Appeal brought on 17 December 2018 by Pracsis SPRL, Conceptexpo Project against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2018 in Case T-33/18, Pracsis and Conceptexpo Project v Commission and EACEA
      (Case C-794/18 P)
      (2019/C 182/04)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellants: Pracsis SPRL, Conceptexpo Project (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
      By order of 11 April 2019, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.


title: Case C-804/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 20 December 2018 — IX v WABE e. V.

text:
               27.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/4

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 20 December 2018 — IX v WABE e. V.
      (Case C-804/18)
      (2019/C 182/05)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Arbeitsgericht Hamburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: IX

         Defendant: WABE e. V.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does a unilateral instruction from the employer prohibiting the wearing of any visible sign of political, ideological or religious beliefs constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of religion, within the meaning of Article 2(1) and Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1), against employees who, due to religious covering requirements, follow certain clothing rules?

                  2.

                  Does a unilateral instruction from the employer prohibiting the wearing of any visible sign of political, ideological or religious beliefs constitute indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion and/or gender, within the meaning of Article 2(1) and Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78/EC, against a female employee who, due to her Muslim faith, wears a headscarf?
                  In particular:

                              (a)

                              Can discrimination on the grounds of religion and/or gender be justified under Directive 2000/78/EC with the employer’s subjective wish to pursue a policy of political, ideological and religious neutrality even where the employer thereby seeks to meet the subjective wishes of his customers?

                              (b)

                              Do Directive 2000/78/EC and/or the fundamental right of freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in view of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC preclude a national regulation according to which, in order to protect the fundamental right of freedom of religion, a ban on religious clothing may be justified not simply on the basis of an abstract capacity to endanger the neutrality of the employer, but only on the basis of a sufficiently specific risk, in particular of a specifically threatened economic disadvantage for the employer or an affected third party?

         (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-34/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 January 2019 — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

text:
               27.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/5

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 January 2019 — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
      (Case C-34/19)
      (2019/C 182/06)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

         Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  May Article 22(3) of Directive 97/13/EC (1) be interpreted as permitting, including for 1998, the maintenance of an obligation to pay a fee or a charge corresponding (insofar as it is based on the same proportion of turnover) to that which had to be paid under the regime which existed prior to that directive?

                  2.

                  In light of the Court’s judgments of 18 September 2003 in Joined Cases C-292/01 and C-293/01 and of 21 February 2008 in Case C-296/06, does Directive 97/13/EC preclude a final national judgment given on the basis of an incorrect interpretation or misconstruction of that directive, with the result that the ruling in that judgment may be disapplied by a different court hearing a dispute which concerns the same substantive legal relationship but is different in that it concerns a demand for payment that is merely ancillary by comparison with that which was the subject of the case which led to the incorrect ruling?

         (1)  Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorizations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15).


title: Case C-37/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 January 2019 — CV v Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo

text:
               27.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/5

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 January 2019 — CV v Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo
      (Case C-37/19)
      (2019/C 182/07)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte suprema di cassazione

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: CV

         Respondent: Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo

         Question referred

      Must Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, taken separately where applicable, be interpreted as precluding provisions of national legislation or national practices pursuant to which, once the employment relationship has ended, the right to payment of an allowance for paid leave accrued but not taken (and for a legal arrangement, such as ‘abolished public holidays’, which is comparable in nature and function to paid annual leave) does not apply in a context where the worker was unable to take the leave before the employment relationship ended because of an unlawful act (a dismissal established as unlawful by a national court by means of a final ruling ordering the retroactive restoration of the employment relationship) attributable to the employer, for the period between that unlawful act by the employer and the subsequent reinstatement only?

         (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).


title: Case C-89/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Rieco SpA v Comune di Lanciano, Ecolan SpA

text:
               27.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/6

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Rieco SpA v Comune di Lanciano, Ecolan SpA
      (Case C-89/19)
      (2019/C 182/08)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Rieco SpA

         Respondents: Comune di Lanciano, Ecolan SpA

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does EU law (in particular the principle of free administration by public authorities and the principle that the different rules governing the award of service contracts and the management of services relevant to public authorities must be essentially equivalent) preclude a national law (such as that set out in Article 192(2) of the Italian Public Procurement Code, Legislative Decree No 50 of 2016), which places the in-house award of contracts on a subordinate level to award by means of public tender procedure and establishes it as an exception to the latter, by: (i) permitting contracts to be awarded in house only when there is clear evidence of failure in the relevant market, and (ii) requiring authorities intending to make an award by inter-organisational delegation to provide specific reasons with regard to the benefits for society at large accruing from that form of award?

                  2.

                  Does EU law (in particular Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) concerning the in-house award of contracts where similar control is exercised jointly with other authorities) preclude a provision of national law (such as that set out in Article 4(1) of the Consolidated Law concerning companies in which all or a majority of the share capital is in public ownership — Legislative Decree No 175 of 2016) which prevents a public authority from acquiring a shareholding (in any event one that can guarantee control or power of veto) in a body in which a number of other public authorities have shareholdings, where that authority intends in any event to acquire subsequently a position of joint control and therefore the possibility of making direct awards to that body in which a number of other public authorities have shareholdings?

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


title: Case C-91/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Rieco SpA v Comune di San Vito Chietino, Ecolan SpA

text:
               27.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/8

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Rieco SpA v Comune di San Vito Chietino, Ecolan SpA
      (Case C-91/19)
      (2019/C 182/10)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Rieco SpA

         Respondents: Comune di San Vito Chietino, Ecolan SpA

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does EU law (in particular the principle of free administration by public authorities and the principle that the different rules governing the award of service contracts and the management of services relevant to public authorities must be essentially equivalent) preclude a national law (such as that set out in Article 192(2) of the Italian Public Procurement Code, Legislative Decree No 50 of 2016), which places the in-house award of contracts on a subordinate level to award by means of public tender procedure and establishes it as an exception to the latter, by: (i) permitting contracts to be awarded in house only when there is clear evidence of failure in the relevant market, and (ii) requiring authorities intending to make an award by inter-organisational delegation to provide specific reasons with regard to the benefits for society at large accruing from that form of award?

                  2.

                  Does EU law (in particular Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) concerning the in-house award of contracts where similar control is exercised jointly with other authorities) preclude a provision of national law (such as that set out in Article 4(1) of the Consolidated Law concerning companies in which all or a majority of the share capital is in public ownership — Legislative Decree No 175 of 2016) which prevents a public authority from acquiring a shareholding (in any event one that can guarantee control or power of veto) in a body in which a number of other public authorities have shareholdings, where that authority intends in any event to acquire subsequently a position of joint control and therefore the possibility of making direct awards to that body in which a number of other public authorities have shareholdings?

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


title: Case C-92/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Burgo Group SpA v Gestore dei Servizi Energetici — GSE

text:
               27.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/9

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Burgo Group SpA v Gestore dei Servizi Energetici — GSE
      (Case C-92/19)
      (2019/C 182/11)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Burgo Group SpA

         Respondent: Gestore dei Servizi Energetici — GSE

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does Directive 2004/8/EC (1) (in particular Article 12 thereof) preclude an interpretation of Articles 3 and 6 of Legislative Decree No 20/2007 as allowing the benefits referred to in Legislative Decree No 79/1999 (in particular in Article 11 thereof and in Decision No 42/02 of 19 March 2002 of the Autorità dell’energia elettrica e del gas (Electricity and Gas Authority) which constitutes implementation of the preceding provision) to be granted also to non-high-efficiency cogeneration installations even beyond 31 December 2010?

                  2.

                  Does Article 107 TFEU preclude an interpretation of Articles 3 and 6 of Legislative Decree No 20/2007, in the sense set out under [1] above, in so far as those provisions, as thus interpreted, might constitute ‘State aid’ and therefore be incompatible with the principle of free competition?

                  3.

                  In line with what is set out under [1] and [2] above, and having regard to what is expressly put forward by the appellant, does a provision of national law which allows support schemes to continue to be granted to non-high-efficiency cogeneration until 31 December 2015 comply with the EU-law principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, since that could be the interpretation of domestic Italian law as a result of Article 25(11)(c)(1) of Legislative Decree No 28 of 3 March 2011, which repeals the abovementioned provisions of Article 11 of Legislative Decree No 79/1999 with effect from 1 January 2016, or rather now by 19 July 2014 (as a result of Article 10(15) of Legislative Decree No 102 of 4 July 2014)?

         (1)  Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending Directive 92/42/EEC (OJ 2004 L 52, p. 50).


title: Case C-94/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2019 — San Domenico Vetraria SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate

text:
               27.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/10

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2019 — San Domenico Vetraria SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate
      (Case C-94/19)
      (2019/C 182/12)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte suprema di cassazione

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: San Domenico Vetraria SpA

         Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate

         Question referred

      Must Articles 2 and 6 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) and the principal of fiscal neutrality be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the lending or secondment of staff by a parent company in respect of which the subsidiary merely reimburses the related costs is regarded as irrelevant for value added tax purposes?

         (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-95/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2019 — Agenzia delle Dogane v Silcompa SpA

text:
               27.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/11

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2019 — Agenzia delle Dogane v Silcompa SpA
      (Case C-95/19)
      (2019/C 182/13)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte suprema di cassazione

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Agenzia delle Dogane

         Respondent and cross-appellant: Silcompa SpA

         Question referred

      Is Article 12(3) of Council Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures (1), as amended by Council Directive 2001/44/EC (2), read in conjunction with Article 20 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (3), to be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings brought against enforcement measures for the collection of excise duty, the court may examine (and if so within what limits) the question of the place (of actual release for consumption) where the irregularity or offence was actually committed where, as in the present case, the same claim, based on the same export transactions, is made, independently, against the taxable person by both the applicant State and the requested State and, in the requested State, proceedings are pending, contemporaneously, both in respect of the national claim and the action for the collection of duties for the other State, and would the court’s finding in that regard invalidate the request for assistance and consequently all the enforcement measures?

         (1)  Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties (OJ 1976 L 73, p. 18).

         (2)  Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001 amending Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agricultural levies and customs duties and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties (OJ 2001 L 175, p. 17).

         (3)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).


title: Case C-97/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2019 — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Köln

text:
               27.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/11

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2019 — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Köln
      (Case C-97/19)
      (2019/C 182/14)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln

         Question referred

      Is Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, according to that provision, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, a customs declaration must be checked and corrected in such a way that the particulars relating to the declarant are replaced by the designation of the person to whom an import licence was issued for the imported goods, and this person is represented by the person who was named as the declarant in the customs declaration and who has submitted a power of attorney from the holder of the import licence to the customs office?

         (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.