title: Case T-800/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Brown Street Holdings v EUIPO — Enesan (FIGHT LIFE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark FIGHT LIFE — Earlier EU word mark FIGHT FOR LIFE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Brown Street Holdings v EUIPO — Enesan (FIGHT LIFE)
      (Case T-800/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark FIGHT LIFE - Earlier EU word mark FIGHT FOR LIFE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 103/48)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Brown Street Holdings Ltd (Auckland, New Zealand) (represented by: initially C. Hufnagel, M. Kleespies, J. Clayton-Chen and A. Bender, and subsequently M. Kleespies and A. Bender, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Enesan AG (Zurich, Switzerland)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 (Case R 36/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Brown Street Holdings and Enesan.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 September 2017 (Case R 36/2017-2) in so far as it rejected the opposition against the application for registration of the mark applied for in respect of the goods in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Brown Street Holdings Ltd.

         (1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.


title: Case T-32/19: Action brought on 17 January 2019 — Harrington Padrón v Council

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/50

      Action brought on 17 January 2019 — Harrington Padrón v Council
      (Case T-32/19)
      (2019/C 103/66)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018, (2) insofar as their provisions concern the Applicant; and

                  —

                  order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that her name should be maintained on the lists set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 (3) and Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017, (4) notwithstanding the fact that she is no longer Deputy Prosecutor General and is not related to the Venezuelan governing authorities.

         (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 10).

         (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 1).

         (3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 60).

         (4)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 21).


title: Case T-38/19: Action brought on 21 January 2019 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/51

      Action brought on 21 January 2019 — Portugal v Commission
      (Case T-38/19)
      (2019/C 103/67)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul Commission Decision C(2018) 7424 of 16 November 2018, notified on 19 November 2018, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the sum of EUR 8 703 417,29relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic in connection with cross-compliance, in the financial years from 2014 to 2016;

                  —

                  Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of its action, the applicant relies on two principal pleas in law and one subsidiary plea.
      First plea in law: error of law in finding that the Portuguese system is too lenient — infringement of Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (2) and infringement of the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1)(c), and Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009. (3)

      Second plea in law:

                  1.

                  ‘Calculation of the financial correction’ — Error of law, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality, and of Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 by the Commission;

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of proportionality.

            Subsidiary plea:
      Average penalty and lack of technical precision of Commission document C(2015) 3675 (annex A.5) — error of law and infringement of the principle of proportionality.

         (1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1841 of 16 November 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2018) 7424) (OJ 2018 L 298, p. 34).

         (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

         (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).


title: Case T-43/19: Action brought on 24 January 2019 WV v EEAS

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/52

      Action brought on 24 January 2019 WV v EEAS
      (Case T-43/19)
      (2019/C 103/68)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European External Action Service

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the application for compensation and, where necessary, the decision of 26 June rejecting the complaint and adopted on 26 October 2018;

                  —

                  Consequently, grant the application for compensation made by the applicant under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations and described in the letter of 29 November 2017, recognise and grant to the applicant payment of an indemnity to be paid by the EEAS, assessed ex aequo et bono and subject to any increase during the proceedings, in the amount of EUR 690 000, in respect of all material and non-material damages, damage to reputation and to professional integrity, such amount being fixed on 31 January 2019, and subject to any increase during the proceedings and without prejudice to claiming compensation for loss of future income resulting from possible departure from the institutions;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea, alleging the infringement, inter alia, of Articles 12, 12a, 22b, 24, 25 and 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), of Article 1 and 2 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, and of 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).
      The applicant also alleges, first, by way of that plea, infringement, inter alia, of Articles 41, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, of the rights of defence, and of the principle of adversarial proceedings and Article 296 TFEU.
      Secondly, she considers that the administration also committed abuses of rights and abuse of process, in addition to a manifest breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of equality of arms. The applicant considers that the contested decision is vitiated by a breach of the principle that requires the administration to adopt a decision solely on the basis of legally permissible grounds, by which is meant grounds that are relevant and not vitiated by any manifest error of assessment, of fact or of law, and breach of the principle of proportionality, of the duty to afford assistance and to have regard for the interests of members of staff, of the ‘reasonable time’ principle and of the principle of good administration.
      The contested decision was therefore based on a partial, biased and tendentious assessment of the facts and of the applicable rules of law.
      The applicant claims, in essence, that there is undoubtedly a causal link between the faults committed by the appointing authority and the damage suffered, since such unlawful conduct causes serious damage to the applicant’s professional, moral and financial integrity. The faults committed serve to damage or even destroy the applicant’s reputation vis-à-vis her internal and external interlocutors and results in her having a real loss of opportunity for professional development, placing her, consequently, in a situation of powerlessness, which is the source of concern and/or a state of permanent anxiety and uncertainty as to the future.


title: Case T-47/19: Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Dansk Erhverv v Commission

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/53

      Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Dansk Erhverv v Commission
      (Case T-47/19)
      (2019/C 103/69)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Dansk Erhverv (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: T. Mygind, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission decision C(2018) 6315 final of 4 October 2018 concerning State aid SA.44865 (2016/FC) — Germany — Alleged State aid to German beverage border shops;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s procedural rights as an interested party pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU and Articles 4(4), 12(1) and 24(1) of the Procedural Regulation, (1) by failing to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU despite the serious difficulties arising in the assessment of the state aid issues addressed in the complaint related to the administrative ‘export declaration’ practice and in particular to the relief of the obligation for the Border Shops to charge a deposit and thereby pay the deposit VAT, as well as a relief of fines for violations of the deposit charging obligations under the German canned beverages deposit scheme. The Commission therefore committed errors of law and manifest errors of assessment of the facts, first, as concerns the compatibility of the ‘export declaration’ practice with Germany’s obligations pursuant to Article 4(3) TFEU, the Packaging Directive (2) and the polluter-pays principle, and with the deposit charging requirements pursuant to the applicable German Packaging Ordonnance. Secondly, the Commission erred with respect to the State aid effects of the VAT revenue foregone by Germany as a result of the ‘export declaration’ practice.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 9.

         (2)  Directive (EU) 2018/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 141.


title: Case T-48/19: Action brought on 28 January 2019 — smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/54

      Action brought on 28 January 2019 — smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things)
      (Case T-48/19)
      (2019/C 103/70)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: smart things solutions GmbH (Seefeld, Germany) (represented by: R. Dissmann, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Samsung Electronics GmbH (Schwalbach am Taunus, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark smart:)things in colours black and green — European Union trade mark No 10 914 836

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2018 in Case R 835/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-49/19: Action brought on 28 January 2019 — View v EUIPO (CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/55

      Action brought on 28 January 2019 — View v EUIPO (CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS)
      (Case T-49/19)
      (2019/C 103/71)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: View, Inc. (Milpitas, Delaware, United States) (represented by: G. Tritton, Barrister)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS — International registration designating the European Union No 1 381 213

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 in Case R 1625/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant.

         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(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-50/19: Action brought on 28 January 2019 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/55

      Action brought on 28 January 2019 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday)
      (Case T-50/19)
      (2019/C 103/72)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Casual Dreams, SLU (Manresa, España) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Ángel López Fernández (Fuensalida, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark Dayaday — Application for registration No 13 243 563

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 in Case R 2097/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul in part the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 27 November 2018 in Case R 2097/2018-5, which rejected in part the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO No B 2 469 545 of 17 December 2015.

                  —

                  Annul in part the contested decision, on the basis of Article 8(5) of the EUTMR, in so far as it upheld the rejection of the opposition and the appeal in respect of the goods in Classes 9, 16 and 24.

                  —

                  Refuse the application for registration of EU trade mark No 13 243 563 submitted by the intervener in respect of the following goods:
                  Class 9: ‘Optical devices, enhancers and correctors; Optical enhancers; Opticians’ goods; Optical apparatus and instruments; Optical glass; Interchangeable lenses; Anti-reflective lenses; Plastic lenses; Ophthalmic lenses; Optical lenses; Lens; Sunglasses; Corrective eyewear; Cases for sunglasses; Correcting lenses [optics]; Glass ophthalmic lenses; Frames for spectacles and sunglasses; Chains for sunglasses; Clip-on sunglasses; Straps for sunglasses; Lenses for sunglasses; Optical lenses for use with sunglasses; Frames for sunglasses; Prescription eyewear; Pince-nez chains; Pince-nez cords; Lenses for eyeglasses; Optical glasses; Holders for contact lenses; Cases adapted for contact lenses; Glasses cases; Lens cases; Containers for contact lenses; Spectacles [optics]; Reading glasses; Children’s eye glasses; Polarizing spectacles; Frames for glasses; Unmounted spectacle frames; Bars for spectacles; Eyeglass shields; Spectacle holders; Spectacles [optics]; Eyeglasses; Corrective eyewear; Spectacle holders; Snow goggles; Cyclists’ glasses; Frames for glasses; Pince-nez chains; Goggles for sports; Glasses cases; Frames for sunglasses; Snow goggles; Swim goggles; Goggles for sports; Goggles for sports’.
                  Class 16: ‘Adhesives for stationery or household purposes; Works of art and figurines of paper and cardboard, and architects’ models; Stationery supplies; Money holders; Adhesives for stationery; Paper bags and sacks; Appointment books; Catalogues; Leather covered diaries; Printed advertisements; Photograph stands; Printing and bookbinding equipment; Writing and stamping implements; Educational equipment; Knives (Paper -) [office requisites]; Agendas; Desk trays; Stationery; Office requisites; Writing materials; Writing stationery; Office stationery; School supplies [stationery]; Bookends; Pen trays’.
                  Class 24: ‘Fabrics; Curtains; Coverings for furniture; Household textile articles; Household textile articles made from non-woven materials; Linens; Wall hangings; Soft furnishings; Non-woven textile articles; Interlinings made of non-woven fabrics; Hat linings, of textile, in the piece; Linings [textile]; Handkerchiefs of textile; Textile tissues; Textile goods, not included in other classes; Handkerchiefs; Textiles made of linen; Textiles made of flannel; Traced cloths for embroidery; Wash cloths; Towels [textile] for kitchen use; Textiles, not included in other classes; Interfacings; Fleece made from polypropylene; Fleece made from polyester; Fabric linings for clothing; Foulard [fabric]; Textile piece goods made of cotton; Synthetic textile piece goods; Textile fabrics in the piece; Canvas; Materials for soft furnishings; Materials for use in making clothes; Suiting materials [textile]; Textiles for making up into articles of clothing; Textile fabrics for making up into household textile articles; Textile fabrics for use in the manufacture of sportswear; Textile fabrics for the manufacture of clothing; Fabric for use in the manufacture of wallets; Fabric of imitation animal skins; Fabric for manufacturing women’s outerwear; Denim fabric; Fabric used for orthotic devices; Waterproof fabrics for use in the manufacture of trousers; Waterproof fabrics for use in the manufacture of jackets; Waterproof fabrics for use in the manufacture of hats; Waterproof fabrics for use in the manufacture of gloves; Fabrics for use as linings in clothing; Apparel fabrics; Coated fabrics for use in the manufacture of leather goods; Coated fabrics for use in the manufacture of rainwear; Woven fabrics imitating leather; Textiles impervious to water but permeable to moisture; Textile piece goods for making-up into towels’.

                  —

                  Order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

      Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-51/19: Action brought on 29 January 2019 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret (apiheal)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/57

      Action brought on 29 January 2019 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret (apiheal)
      (Case T-51/19)
      (2019/C 103/73)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark apiheal — Application for registration No 14 411 557

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2018 in Case R 1725/2017-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the contested decision in so far as concerns the partial granting of the application for the following goods: ‘perfumery; cosmetics; fragrances; deodorants for personal use and animals; soaps; bath herbs, not for medical purposes; dental care preparations, dentifrices, denture polishes, tooth whitening preparations, mouth washes, not for medical use’ in Class 3 and ‘preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides’ in Class 5.

                  —

                  Refuse EU trade mark application No 14 411 557 apiheal with regard to the aforementioned ‘perfumery; cosmetics; fragrances; deodorants for personal use and animals; soaps; bath herbs, not for medical purposes; dental care preparations, dentifrices, denture polishes, tooth whitening preparations, mouth washes, not for medical use’ in Class 3 and ‘preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides’ in Class 5.

                  —

                  Order EUIPO and, if applicable, the intervener to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

      Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and the Council.


title: Case T-53/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — SBS Bilimsel Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Laboratorios Ern (apiheal)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/58

      Action brought on 31 January 2019 — SBS Bilimsel Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Laboratorios Ern (apiheal)
      (Case T-53/19)
      (2019/C 103/74)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: SBS Bilimsel Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. López Camba, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark apiheal — Application for registration No 14 411 557

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2018 in Case R 1725/2017-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision in so far as it refused registration in respect of goods in Classes 30 and 5 (first and third paragraphs of the operative part of that decision);

                  —

                  order EUIPO and Laboratorios Ern, SA, to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

      Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-56/17: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO and Others v SEAE

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/59

      Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO and Others v SEAE
      (Case T-56/17) (1)

      (2019/C 103/75)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.


title: Case T-479/17: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO v EEAS

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/59

      Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO v EEAS
      (Case T-479/17) (1)

      (2019/C 103/76)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-727/17: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PP and Others v EEAS

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/59

      Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PP and Others v EEAS
      (Case T-727/17) (1)

      (2019/C 103/77)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case T-180/18: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — VJ v EEAS

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/60

      Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — VJ v EEAS
      (Case T-180/18) (1)

      (2019/C 103/78)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case T-494/18: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO v EEAS

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/60

      Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO v EEAS
      (Case T-494/18) (1)

      (2019/C 103/79)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.


title: Case T-52/19: Action brought on 28 January 2019 — AH v Eurofound

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/43

      Action brought on 28 January 2019 — AH v Eurofound
      (Case T-52/19)
      (2019/C 112/52)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: AH (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of 22 March 2018 of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions notified to the applicant through his legal representative by a letter from the legal representative of that agency, the law firm Beauchamps, in that it rejects the applicant’s complaint alleging breach of the rules on the protection of private and personal data, his request for an investigation into that breach and his claim for compensation lodged on 2 February 2018 through his legal representative;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 30 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the data breach and the rejection of the application lodged on 2 February 2018;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful in that it was not taken by the competent appointing authority but by an external law firm with no mandate or power to that effect.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of sound administration, the duty to provide assistance and Articles 22 and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) on the ground that the defendant rejected the application without conducting an administrative investigation.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging inter alia infringement of the duty to state reasons, the rights of the defence and, in particular, the right to a fair hearing and the duty of care.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law alleging infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and the applicable provisions regarding the right to protection of personal data.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law alleging conflict of interest and infringement of the duty of objectivity, impartiality and independence of public administrations.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law alleging misuse of power.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law alleging infringement of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the confidentiality afforded to the trade union activities in which any worker may take part.


title: Case T-156/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — France v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by France — Area-related aid scheme — Procedural safeguards — Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 — Concept of ‘permanent pasture’ — Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 — National control system based on a definition of forage areas which is not consistent with EU law — Exclusion of all the expenditure — Proportionality — Metropolitan France’s rural development programme — Rural development support measures — Areas with natural handicaps — Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 — Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 — Flat-rate financial correction — On-the-spot checks — Loading criterion — Counting of animals — Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry — Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 — Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 — Conditions for the grant of restructuring aid — Concept of ‘production facilities’ — Assessment of the use of silos on the date of submission of the aid application — Concept of‘full dismantling’ — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Annex 2 to document VI/5330/97)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/43

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — France v Commission
      (Case T-156/15) (1)

      (EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by France - Area-related aid scheme - Procedural safeguards - Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Concept of ‘permanent pasture’ - Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 - National control system based on a definition of forage areas which is not consistent with EU law - Exclusion of all the expenditure - Proportionality - Metropolitan France’s rural development programme - Rural development support measures - Areas with natural handicaps - Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 - Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Flat-rate financial correction - On-the-spot checks - Loading criterion - Counting of animals - Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry - Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 - Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 - Conditions for the grant of restructuring aid - Concept of ‘production facilities’ - Assessment of the use of silos on the date of submission of the aid application - Concept of‘full dismantling’ - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Annex 2 to document VI/5330/97)
      (2019/C 148/39)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially, F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, subsequently, G. de Bergues, D. Colas, F. Fize and A. Daly and, finally, D. Colas, S. Horrenberger, R. Coesme, E. de Moustier and A.-L. Desjonquères, acting as agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Triantafyllou, acting as agents)

         Interveners in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by C. Colelli, avvocato dello Stato) and Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing all the expenditure incurred by the French Republic in Upper Corsica in respect of first pillar area-related direct aid relating to the 2010 and 2011 claim years;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                     Orders the European Commission and the French Republic to bear their own costs;

                  4.

                     Orders the Italian Republic and Hungary to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


title: Joined Cases C-297/17, C-318/17, C-319/17 and C-438/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bashar Ibrahim (C-297/17), Mahmud Ibrahim and Others (C-318/17), Nisreen Sharqawi, Yazan Fattayrji, Hosam Fattayrji (C-319/17) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Taus Magamadov (C-438/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 33(2)(a) — Rejection by the authorities of a Member State of an application for asylum as being inadmissible because of the prior granting of subsidiary protection in another Member State — Article 52 — Scope ratione temporis of that directive — Articles 4 and 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Systemic flaws in the asylum procedure in that other Member State — Systematic rejection of applications for asylum — Substantial risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment — Living conditions of those granted subsidiary protection in that other State)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/11

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bashar Ibrahim (C-297/17), Mahmud Ibrahim and Others (C-318/17), Nisreen Sharqawi, Yazan Fattayrji, Hosam Fattayrji (C-319/17) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Taus Magamadov (C-438/17)
      (Joined Cases C-297/17, C-318/17, C-319/17 and C-438/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 33(2)(a) - Rejection by the authorities of a Member State of an application for asylum as being inadmissible because of the prior granting of subsidiary protection in another Member State - Article 52 - Scope ratione temporis of that directive - Articles 4 and 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Systemic flaws in the asylum procedure in that other Member State - Systematic rejection of applications for asylum - Substantial risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment - Living conditions of those granted subsidiary protection in that other State)
      (2019/C 187/13)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Bashar Ibrahim (C-297/17), Mahmud Ibrahim, Fadwa Ibrahim, Bushra Ibrahim, Mohammad Ibrahim, Ahmad Ibrahim (C-318/17), Nisreen Sharqawi, Yazan Fattayrji, Hosam Fattayrji (C-319/17), Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-438/17)

         Defendants: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-297/17, C-318/17, C-319/17), Taus Magamadov (C-438/17)

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as meaning that it permits a Member State to provide for the immediate application of the provision of national law transposing Article 33(2)(a) of that directive to applications for asylum on which no final decision has yet been made, which were lodged before 20 July 2015 and before the entry into force of that provision of national law. However, the first paragraph of Article 52 of that directive, read in the light of, inter alia, Article 33 thereof, precludes such an immediate application in a situation where both the application for asylum and the take back request were lodged before the entry into force of Directive 2013/32 and, in accordance with Article 49 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, still fall fully within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national.

                  2.

                  In a situation such as that at issue in Cases C-297/17, C-318/17 and C-319/17, Article 33 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not a condition for Member States to be able to reject an application for asylum as being inadmissible under Article 33(2)(a) of the directive that they must, or must be able, to have recourse, as the first resort, to the take charge or take back procedures provided for by Regulation No 604/2013.

                  3.

                  Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from exercising the option granted by that provision to reject an application for the grant of refugee status as being inadmissible on the ground that the applicant has been previously granted subsidiary protection by another Member State, where the living conditions that that applicant could be expected to encounter as the beneficiary of subsidiary protection in that other Member State would not expose him to a substantial risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The fact that the beneficiaries of such subsidiary protection do not receive, in that Member State, any subsistence allowance, or that such allowance as they receive is markedly inferior to that in other Member States, though they are not treated differently from nationals of that Member State, can lead to the finding that that applicant would be exposed in that Member State to such a risk only if the consequence is that that applicant would, because of his or her particular vulnerability, irrespective of his or her wishes and personal choices, be in a situation of extreme material poverty.
                  Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from exercising that option, where the asylum procedure in the other Member State that has granted subsidiary protection to the applicant leads to a systematic refusal, without real examination, to grant refugee status to applicants for international protection who satisfy the conditions laid down in Chapters II and III of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted.

         (1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.

         OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case C-465/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Falck Rettungsdienste GmbH, Falck A/S v Stadt Solingen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 10(h) — Specific exclusions for service contracts — Civil defence, civil protection and danger prevention services — Non-profit organisations or associations — Patient transport ambulance services — Transport by qualified ambulance)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/16

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Falck Rettungsdienste GmbH, Falck A/S v Stadt Solingen
      (Case C-465/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 10(h) - Specific exclusions for service contracts - Civil defence, civil protection and danger prevention services - Non-profit organisations or associations - Patient transport ambulance services - Transport by qualified ambulance)
      (2019/C 187/18)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Falck Rettungsdienste GmbH, Falck A/S

         Defendant: Stadt Solingen

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusion from the application of the public procurement rules that it lays down, covers the care of patients in an emergency situation in a rescue vehicle by an emergency worker/paramedic, covered by CPV [Common Procurement Vocabulary] code 75252000-7 (rescue services) and transport by qualified ambulance, which comprises, in addition to the provision of transport, the care of patients in an ambulance by a paramedic assisted by a medical assistant, covered by CPV code 85143000-3 (ambulance services), provided that, as regards transport by qualified ambulance, it is in fact undertaken by personnel properly trained in first aid and, second, it is provided to a patient whose state of health is at risk of deterioration during that transport.

                  2.

                  Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24 must be interpreted as meaning, first, that it precludes public aid associations recognised in national law as civil protection and defence associations from being regarded as ‘non-profit organisations or associations’, within the meaning of that provision, in so far as, under national law, recognition as having public aid association status is not subject to not having a profit-making purpose and, second, that organisations or associations whose purpose is to undertake social tasks, which have no commercial purpose and which reinvest any profits in order to achieve the objective of that organisation or association constitute ‘non-profit organisations or associations’ within the meaning of that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.


title: Cases T-910/16 and T 911/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 –Hesse and Wedl & Hofmann v EUIPO (TESTA ROSSA) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark TESTA ROSSA — Partial revocation — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of use — Outward use of the contested mark — Equal treatment)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/64

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 –Hesse and Wedl & Hofmann v EUIPO (TESTA ROSSA)
      (Cases T-910/16 and T 911/16) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark TESTA ROSSA - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of use - Outward use of the contested mark - Equal treatment)
      (2019/C 187/67)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant in Case T-910/16: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

         Applicant in Case T-911/16: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils, Austria) (represented by: T. Raubal, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

         Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the General Court, respectively in Case T-910/16 and Case T-911/16: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH and Kurt Hesse

         Re:

      Actions brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 (Case R 68/2016-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Hesse and Wedl & Hofmann.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Joins Cases T-910/16 and T-911/16 for the purposes of the judgment;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the actions;

                  3.

                     Orders Mr Kurt Hesse to pay the costs in Case T-910/16;

                  4.

                     Orders Wedl & Hofmann GmbH to pay the costs in Case T-911/16.

         (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Case T-701/18: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — SJ v Commission

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/80

      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — SJ v Commission
      (Case T-701/18)
      (2019/C 187/86)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: SJ (represented by: J. MacGuill, Solicitor and E. Martin-Vignerte, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the European Commission’s refusal to grant access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), taken by confirmatory decision C(2018) 6642 final of 4 October 2018, and notified to the applicant on 8 October 2018;

                  —

                  in relation to costs, order that each party should bear their own costs or that the defendant bear the applicant’s costs were the applicant to succeed.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that, by relying on the general presumption of non-disclosure, the defendant effectively shifted the burden of proof and afflicted the applicant with an impossible burden of proof to discharge, in contradiction with stated case-law.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the existence of an overriding public interest, in breach of the principles of the relevant case-law.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p.43).


title: Case T-177/19: Action brought on 21 March 2019 — Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical v ECHA

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/80

      Action brought on 21 March 2019 — Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical v ECHA
      (Case T-177/19)
      (2019/C 187/87)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical BVBA (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: M. Navin-Jones, Solicitor and A. Kołtunowska, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the application admissible and well-founded;

                  —

                  annul ECHA’s decision no ED/88/2018 concerning inclusion of substances of very high concern in the Candidate List for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV, published on 15 January 2019, as it pertains to phenanthrene; and

                  —

                  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, alleging that the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment of the very persistent proprieties of phenanthrene and exceeded its competence as well as breached Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 (1) by:

                              —

                              relying on finding of the 2009 Member State committee support document on the very persistent proprieties of phenanthrene as a constituent of coal tar pitch, high temperature without making its own assessment of the information at hand and thereby importing the vitiating errors in that support document;

                              —

                              reaching conclusions on the very persistent proprieties of phenanthrene which the evidence relied upon would have not been capable of supporting;

                              —

                              failing to consider available evidence that would have risen serious questions about the reliability and extreme conservatism of the water-sediment simulation OECD 308 study on phenanthrene;

                              —

                              failing to take into consideration information calling into question the use of a calculation to adjust the results of the OECD 308 study to account for temperature;

                              —

                              failing to assess the new evidence on the persistence of phenanthrene that would have been made available to it during the public consultation; and

                              —

                              by failing to consider all relevant information in the weight of evidence determination of the persistent proprieties of phenanthrene specifically with respect to the photodegradation, dissolution, and volatilisation of phenanthrene.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested act, the defendant infringed the European Union law principle of proportionality.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1).


title: Case T-186/19: Action brought on 29 March 2019 — Zubedi v Council

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/82

      Action brought on 29 March 2019 — Zubedi v Council
      (Case T-186/19)
      (2019/C 187/88)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Khaled Zubedi (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: M. Lester, QC and M. O’Kane, Solicitor)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Council implementing decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 (1) and Council implementing regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 (2), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error in its assessment by including the applicant in the European Union’s restrictive measures concerning Syria.
      The applicant has been included by the Council implementing decision (CFSP) 2019/87 and Council implementing regulation (EU) 2019/85 on the basis that he is one of a group of successful businessman in Syria, who are all said by the defendant, to be making large profits from and supporting the regime of President Assad by forming partnerships with State backed companies to develop land expropriated from people displaced by the conflict in Syria. This would be completely untrue in respect of the applicant, the criteria for inclusion would have not been fulfilled and the defendant’s case would have been based on an insufficiently solid basis.

         (1)  Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 181, 21.1.2019, p. 13).

         (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ L 181, 21.1.2019, p. 4).


title: Case T-189/19: Action brought on 3 April 2019 — Haykal v Council

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/82

      Action brought on 3 April 2019 — Haykal v Council
      (Case T-189/19)
      (2019/C 187/89)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Parties

         Applicant: Maen Haykal (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: Stanislav Koev, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the present action to be admissible and well founded in its entirety and declare all the grounds of appeal set out in support of the present appeal to be well founded,

                  —

                  declare that the contested acts may be annulled in part,

                  —

                  annul in part Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns Maen Haykal,

                  —

                  annul in part Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns Maen Haykal, and

                  —

                  order the Council of the European Union to pay all the applicant’s costs, expenses, fees and other expenditure linked to his defence.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging failure on the part of the Council to fulfil its obligation to state reasons — Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties — Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection — Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR, Article 215 TFEU and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment on the part of the Council.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property, of the principle of proportionality and of the freedom to conduct a business — Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a normal life — Articles 2 and 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 3 and 25 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging a serious infringement of the right to the protection of reputation — Article 8 and Article 10(2) of the ECHR.


title: Case T-211/19: Action brought on 5 April 2019 — Le Pen v Parliament

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/84

      Action brought on 5 April 2019 — Le Pen v Parliament
      (Case T-211/19)
      (2019/C 187/90)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Annul European Parliament Decision P8_TA-PROV(2019)0136 of 12 March 2019 on the request for waiver of the applicant’s immunity 2018/2247(IMM), which does indeed waive the applicant’s immunity;

                  —

                  Order the Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 266), Article 5(1) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 2005 L 44, p. 1), and Notices to Members Nos 11/2003 and 11/2016.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging abuse of process. The applicant takes the view that in agreeing to the waiver of the applicant’s parliamentary immunity, the Parliament allows the French examining magistrate to replace the Secretary-General of the Parliament for the period 2009-2014, thus infringing Article 68(1) of the Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, which confers exclusive competence on the Secretary-General for deciding on sums unduly paid and ordering the issuance of an enforceable instrument against the Member concerned.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging misuse of power, abuse of process and breach of the reasonable time period for instituting proceedings. The applicant claims that the Parliament committed an abuse of process, thereby affecting the applicant’s exercise of his rights of defence inasmuch as, after nearly three terms without any claim on the part of the Secretary-General, the applicant did not consider it necessary to keep evidence of the work done by his assistants, and is unable to answer the court.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 43 of Notice to Members No 11/2016, in so far as the underlying purpose of the proceedings is to make the activities of members of one of the main opposition parties in the Parliament more difficult.


title: Case T-213/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — AW v Parliament

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/85

      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — AW v Parliament
      (Case T-213/19)
      (2019/C 187/91)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: AW (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the present action admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  annul the decisions dated 7 August 2018 adopted by the defendant, which reject the applicant’s requests for recognition of the occupational origin of two diseases (neck pain and stress-related urticaria) and, so far as necessary, annul the decision of 19 February 2019 by which the defendant rejected the complaint brought on 16 October 2018 by the applicant against the decisions of 7 August 2018;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all 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, alleging the infringement of Article 22(3) of the Common rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease (‘the Common Rules’), on account of procedural irregularities committed by the medical committee.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 22 of the Common Rules in conjunction with the infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, inasmuch as the medical committee did not act independently, but on the Parliament’s instructions.


title: Case T-239/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Vinos de Arganza v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (ENCANTO)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/85

      Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Vinos de Arganza v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (ENCANTO)
      (Case T-239/19)
      (2019/C 187/92)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Vinos de Arganza, SL (Toral de los Vados, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH (Nordhausen, Germany)

         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 mark ENCANTO — Application for registration No 15 542 251

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2019 in Case R 392/2018-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  reject the opposition;

                  —

                  allow the registration of the trade mark applied;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-241/19: Action brought on 10 April 2019 — Spain v Commission

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/86

      Action brought on 10 April 2019 — Spain v Commission
      (Case T-241/19)
      (2019/C 187/93)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Agent)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission Decision of 19 December 2018 on the State aid SA 34914 (2013/C) implemented by the United Kingdom as regards the Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU on account of misapplication of the criterion of territorial selectivity

                              —

                              The applicant submits in that regard that, when it adopted the contested decision, the Commission possessed data and information that showed the existence of territorially selective State aid, which should have led it to have doubts as to the selective scope of the aid. By confining itself to the criterion of material selectivity, the Commission came to incorrect conclusions, given that there is or may be more aid than that actually identified in the contested decision.

                  2.

                  Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, inasmuch as the contested decision is a measure formally lacking a statement of reasons and the appropriate assessment in terms of selectivity

                              —

                              The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission fails to state the reasons for which it does not accept the arguments which, concerning territorial selectivity, the Kingdom of Spain had been substantiating throughout the proceedings. The contested decision is a measure materially lacking a statement of reasons, as a result of its incorrect interpretation of the judgment of the General Court of 18 December 2008, Government of Gibraltar v Commission, T-211/04 and T-215/04, EU:T:2008:595. After that judgment was set aside by the Court of Justice (judgment of 15 November 2011, Commission and Spain v Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom, C-106/09 P and C-107/09 P, EU:C:2011:732), the position set out in Commission Decision 2005/261/EC of 30 March 2004 was reinstated without any reasons being stated for that change of position.


title: Case T-249/19: Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/87

      Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission
      (Case T-249/19)
      (2019/C 187/94)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova (Woluwe Saint Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul both challenged decisions so that the European Commission reevaluates the applicant’s status and grant her the expatriation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance, the travel costs on taking up duty and the removal expenses;

                  —

                  order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a false interpretation of article 4(1) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulation concerning the definition of the habitual residence, given that the contested decisions disregard the diplomatic status of the applicant’s spouse covering the most of the critical period of 5 years ending six months before she entered the service and because they took into account interim contracts the applicant has had, while her family returned back to their home country.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the contested decisions since they don’t take into account facts that undeniably and beyond any assessment prove the removal of the entire household from Brussels back to the home country of the applicant, namely on the basis of the unsubstantiated assumptions.


title: Case T-250/19: Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Tradición CZ v EUIPO — Rivero Argudo (TRADICIÓN CZ, S.L.)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/88

      Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Tradición CZ v EUIPO — Rivero Argudo (TRADICIÓN CZ, S.L.)
      (Case T-250/19)
      (2019/C 187/95)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Tradición CZ, SL (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: María Dolores Rivero Argudo (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark TRADICIÓN CZ, S.L. — Application for registration No 14 977 045

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 in Case R 257/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Stay the present proceedings until a final decision is taken in the revocation proceedings against the opposing trade mark No 7272594 RIVERO CZ (proceedings 33785-C) before EUIPO.

                  —

                  Declare the first plea well founded, annul the contested decision and find that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

                  —

                  In the alternative and cumulatively, declare the second plea well founded, annul the contested decision and find that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue in respect of the services in Class 35 relating to the sale of vinegars and musts.

                  —

                  Order EUIPO and the other party, should she appear in the present proceedings, to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-255/19: Action brought on 18 April 2019 — Baustoffwerke Gebhart & Söhne v EUIPO (BIOTON)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/89

      Action brought on 18 April 2019 — Baustoffwerke Gebhart & Söhne v EUIPO (BIOTON)
      (Case T-255/19)
      (2019/C 187/96)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Baustoffwerke Gebhart & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (Aichstetten, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark BIOTON — Application for registration No 17 746 009

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2019 in Case R 1887/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and allow the EU trade mark application BIOTON to proceed to registration in respect of all the goods applied for;

                  —

                  in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO with the direction to alter the contested decision and register EU trade mark No 17 746 009 BIOTON;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         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.


title: Case T-229/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — AlzChem Trostberg v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/83

      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — AlzChem Trostberg v Commission
      (Case T-229/19)
      (2019/C 206/74)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: AlzChem Trostberg GmbH (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: F. Wagner and N. Voß, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-271/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Mauritsch v INEA (Civil service — Contract staff — Fixed-term contract — Initial rejection by the applicant of the offer of extension of contract — Resignation — Refusal of entitlement to unemployment benefits — Liability)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Mauritsch v INEA
      (Case T-271/18) (1)

      (Civil service - Contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Initial rejection by the applicant of the offer of extension of contract - Resignation - Refusal of entitlement to unemployment benefits - Liability)
      (2019/C 213/32)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Walter Mauritsch (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

         Defendant: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (represented by: I. Ramallo, acting as Agent, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment, firstly of the decision of the INEA of 24 January 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 4 October 2017 and, secondly, the decision of the INEA of 2 August 2017 rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation of 10 April 2017, and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Walter Mauritsch to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


title: Case T-284/19: Action brought on 2 May 2019 — Wonder Line v EUIPO — De Longhi Benelux (KENWELL)

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/24

      Action brought on 2 May 2019 — Wonder Line v EUIPO — De Longhi Benelux (KENWELL)
      (Case T-284/19)
      (2019/C 238/28)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Wonder Line, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: De Longhi Benelux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark KENWELL — Application for registration No 13 532 296

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2019 in Case R 1351/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the defendant and possible co-defendants to pay all expenses of the proceedings.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-262/17: Order of the General Court of 15 May 2019 — Metrans v Commission and INEA (Action for annulment — Commission decision granting financing for the ‘Multimodal Container Terminal Paskov, Phase III’ and ‘Intermodal Terminal Mělník, Phases 2 and 3’ transport project proposals under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/22

      Order of the General Court of 15 May 2019 — Metrans v Commission and INEA
      (Case T-262/17) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Commission decision granting financing for the ‘Multimodal Container Terminal Paskov, Phase III’ and ‘Intermodal Terminal Mělník, Phases 2 and 3’ transport project proposals under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 246/22)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Metrans a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: A. Schwarz, lawyer)

         Defendants: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents), Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (represented by: I. Ramallo and D. Silhol, acting as Agents, and A. Duron, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for (i) annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 5047 final of 5 August 2016 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 5 November 2015 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme, in so far as it concerns two proposals entitled ‘Multimodal Container Terminal Paskov, Phase III’ and ‘Intermodal Terminal Mělník, Phases 2 and 3’, and (ii) annulment of the two grant agreements relating to those two proposals signed by the INEA.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     Metrans a.s. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA).

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case C-664/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos — Greece) — Ellinika Nafpigeia AE v Panagiotis Anagnostopoulos and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2001/23/EC — Scope — Transfer of part of an undertaking — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Concept of ‘transfer’ — Concept of ‘economic entity’ — Transfer of part of the economic activity of a parent company to a newly created subsidiary — Identity — Autonomy — Pursuit of an economic activity — Criterion requiring stability of the pursuit of an economic activity — Recourse to factors of production of third parties — Intention to liquidate the entity transferred)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/7

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos — Greece) — Ellinika Nafpigeia AE v Panagiotis Anagnostopoulos and Others
      (Case C-664/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Scope - Transfer of part of an undertaking - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Concept of ‘transfer’ - Concept of ‘economic entity’ - Transfer of part of the economic activity of a parent company to a newly created subsidiary - Identity - Autonomy - Pursuit of an economic activity - Criterion requiring stability of the pursuit of an economic activity - Recourse to factors of production of third parties - Intention to liquidate the entity transferred)
      (2019/C 263/08)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Referring court

      Areios Pagos

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Ellinika Nafpigeia AE

         Respondents: Panagiotis Anagnostopoulos and Others

         Interveners: Syllogos Ergazomenon Nafpigeion Skaramagka, I TRIAINA, Panellinia Omospondia Ergatoÿpallilon Metallou (POEM), Geniki Synomospondia Ergaton Ellados (GSEE)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, in particular Article 1(1)(a) and (b) thereof, must be interpreted as applying to the transfer of a production unit where, first, the transferor, the transferee, or both those persons jointly, act with a view to the transferee pursuing the economic activity engaged in by the transferor, but also with a view to the transferee itself subsequently ceasing to exist, in the context of a liquidation, and second, the unit at issue, lacking the ability to attain its economic object without having recourse to factors of production from third parties, is not totally autonomous, provided that — matters which are for the referring court to establish — first, the general principle of EU law requiring the transferor and transferee not to seek to obtain fraudulently or wrongfully the advantages that they might derive from Directive 2001/23 is observed and, second, the production unit concerned has sufficient safeguards ensuring it access to the factors of production of a third party so as not to be dependent upon the economic choices unilaterally made by the latter.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.


title: Case C-705/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Patent- och registreringsverket v Mats Hansson (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 4(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Overall impression — Earlier trade mark registered with a disclaimer — Effects of such a disclaimer on the extent of protection of the earlier trade mark)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/8

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Patent- och registreringsverket v Mats Hansson
      (Case C-705/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 4(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Overall impression - Earlier trade mark registered with a disclaimer - Effects of such a disclaimer on the extent of protection of the earlier trade mark)
      (2019/C 263/09)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Svea hovrätt

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Patent- och registreringsverket

         Defendant: Mats Hansson

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as precluding national legislation making provision for a disclaimer whose effect would be to exclude an element of a complex trade mark, referred to in that disclaimer, from the global analysis of the relevant factors for showing the existence of a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of that provision, or to attribute to such an element, in advance and permanently, limited importance in that analysis.

         (1)  OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.


title: Case C-720/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Mohammed Bilali v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Asylum policy — Subsidiary protection — Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 19 — Revocation of subsidiary protection status — Error on the part of the administrative authorities with respect to the facts)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/9

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Mohammed Bilali v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl
      (Case C-720/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum policy - Subsidiary protection - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 19 - Revocation of subsidiary protection status - Error on the part of the administrative authorities with respect to the facts)
      (2019/C 263/10)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Mohammed Bilali

         Defendant: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 19(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, read in conjunction with Article 16 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State must revoke subsidiary protection status if it granted that status when the conditions for granting it were not met, in reliance on facts which have subsequently been revealed to be incorrect, and notwithstanding the fact that the person concerned cannot be accused of having misled the Member State on that occasion.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case C-22/18: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — TopFit e.V., Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU — Rules of a sports association — Participation in the national championship of a Member State by an amateur athlete holding the nationality of another Member State — Different treatment on the basis of nationality — Restriction on free movement)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/10

      Judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — TopFit e.V., Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V.
      (Case C-22/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU - Rules of a sports association - Participation in the national championship of a Member State by an amateur athlete holding the nationality of another Member State - Different treatment on the basis of nationality - Restriction on free movement)
      (2019/C 263/11)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Darmstadt

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: TopFit e.V., Daniele Biffi

         Defendant: Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V.

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of a national sports association, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which an EU citizen, who is a national of another Member State and who has resided for a number of years in the territory of the Member State where that association, in which he runs in the senior category and in an amateur capacity, is established, cannot participate in the national championships in those disciplines in the same way as nationals can, or can participate in them only ‘outside classification’ or ‘without classification’, without being able to progress to the final and without being eligible to be awarded the title of national champion, unless those rules are justified by objective considerations which are proportionate to the legitimate objective pursued, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.

         (1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.