title: Case T-444/18: Action brought on 16 July 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/17

      Action brought on 16 July 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
      (Case T-444/18)
      (2018/C 311/18)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — EU trade mark No 270 439

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 in Case R 522/2006-1

         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 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(2) of the German Law on trade marks;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(3) of the German Law on trade marks;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 63 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.


title: Case C-276/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 24 April 2018 — KrakVet Marek Batko sp. K. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/2

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 24 April 2018 — KrakVet Marek Batko sp. K. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
      (Case C-276/18)
      (2018/C 311/03)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: KrakVet Marek Batko sp. K.

         Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must the objectives of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax ([‘the VAT Directive’]), in particular the requirements for the prevention of jurisdictional conflicts between Member States and double taxation, referred to in recitals 17 and 62 thereof, and Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, (2) in particular recitals 5, 7 and 8 and Articles 7, 13 and 28 to 30 thereof, be interpreted as precluding a practice of the tax authorities of a Member State which, by attributing to a transaction a qualification that differs both from the legal interpretation of the same transaction and the same facts that was carried out by the tax authorities of another Member State and from the response to the binding inquiry provided by those authorities on the basis of that interpretation, as well as from the confirmatory conclusion of both that those authorities reached in the tax inspection they carried out, gives rise to the double taxation of the taxable person?

                  2.

                  If the answer to the first question is that such a practice is not contrary to EU law, can the tax authorities of a Member State, taking into account Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and EU law, unilaterally determine the tax obligation, without taking into consideration that the tax authorities of another Member State have already confirmed, on various occasions, first at the request of the taxable person and later in its decisions as a result of an inspection, the lawfulness of that taxable person’s actions?
                  Or should the tax authorities of both Member States cooperate to reach an agreement, in the interests of the principle of fiscal neutrality and the prevention of double taxation, so that the taxable person has to pay [VAT] in only one of those countries?

                  3.

                  If the response to the second question is that the tax authorities of a Member State can change the qualification of a tax unilaterally, should the provisions of the [VAT Directive] be interpreted as meaning that the tax authorities of a second Member State are obliged to return to the taxable person required to pay VAT the tax determined by those authorities in response to a binding inquiry and paid in relation to a period closed with an inspection, so that both the prevention of double taxation and the principle of fiscal neutrality are guaranteed?

                  4.

                  How should the expression in the first sentence of Article 33(1) of the Harmonised VAT Directive, according to which the transport is carried out ‘by or on behalf of the supplier’, be interpreted? Does this expression include the case in which the taxable person offers as a seller, in an online shopping platform, the possibility for the buyer to enter into a contract with a logistics company, with which the seller collaborates for operations other than the sale, when the buyer can also freely choose a carrier other than the one proposed, and the transport contract is concluded by the buyer and the carrier, without the intervention of the seller?
                  Is it relevant, for interpretative purposes — especially taking into account the principle of legal certainty — that by the year 2021 the Member States must amend legislation transposing the aforementioned provision of the [VAT Directive], so that Article 33(1) of that directive must also be applied in case of indirect collaboration in the choice of carrier?

                  5.

                  Should EU law, specifically the [VAT Directive], be interpreted as meaning that the facts mentioned below, taken as a whole or separately, are relevant to examine whether, among the independent companies that carry out a delivery, expedition or transport of goods the taxable person has arranged, to circumvent Article 33 of the [VAT Directive] and thereby infringe the law, legal relationships that seek to take advantage of the fact that the VAT is lower in the other Member State:

                              5.1.

                              the logistics company carrying out the transport is linked to the taxable person and provides other services, independent of transport,

                              5.2.

                              at the same time, the customer may at any time depart from the option proposed by the taxable person, which is to order the transport to the logistics company with which it maintains a contractual link, being able to entrust the transport to another carrier or personally collect the goods?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

         (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax (OJ 2010 L 268, p. 1).


title: Case T-356/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 —Austria v Commission (State aid — Aid planned by the United Kingdom in favour of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station — Contract for Difference, Secretary of State Agreement and Credit Guarantee — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Public interest objective — Promotion of nuclear energy — Need for State intervention — Guarantee Notice — Determination of the aid element — Proportionality — Investment aid — Operating aid — Right to submit observations — Public procurement procedure — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/12

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 —Austria v Commission
      (Case T-356/15) (1)

      ((State aid - Aid planned by the United Kingdom in favour of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station - Contract for Difference, Secretary of State Agreement and Credit Guarantee - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Public interest objective - Promotion of nuclear energy - Need for State intervention - Guarantee Notice - Determination of the aid element - Proportionality - Investment aid - Operating aid - Right to submit observations - Public procurement procedure - Obligation to state reasons))
      (2018/C 311/12)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented initially by: C. Pesendorfer and M. Klamert, and subsequently by G. Hesse and M. Fruhmann, acting as Agents, and by H. Kristoferitsch, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, R. Sauer, T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by D. Holderer, acting as Agent, and by P. Kinsch, lawyer)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented initially by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, and subsequently by D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented initially by: M. Fehér and M. Bóra, subsequently by B. Sonkodi, then by A. Steiner, acting as Agents, and by P. Nagy, lawyer, and finally by A. Steiner), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Romania (represented initially by: R. Radu and M. Bejenar, and subsequently by M. Bejenar and C. R. Canţăr, acting as Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by: C. Brodie and S. Brandon, subsequently by C. Brodie, S. Simmons and M. Holt, then by C. Brodie, S. Simmons and D. Robertson, then by C. Brodie and D. Robertson, then by C. Brodie, and finally by C. Brodie and Z. Lavery, acting as Agents, and by T. Johnston, Barrister, and A. Robertson QC)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/658 of 8 October 2014 on the aid measure SA.34947 (2013/C) (ex 2013/N) which the United Kingdom is planning to implement for support to the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (OJ 2015 L 109, p. 44), in which the Commission found that that State aid measure was compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and authorised its implementation.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-323/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 May 2018 — Tesco-Global Áruházak Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/4

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 May 2018 — Tesco-Global Áruházak Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
      (Case C-323/18)
      (2018/C 311/04)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Tesco-Global Áruházak Zrt.

         Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the fact that taxable persons under foreign ownership which operate a number of retail establishments through a single company and which are engaged in store retail trade in fact have to pay the special tax corresponding to the highest band of a steeply progressive tax rate, whereas taxable persons under domestic ownership operating as a franchise under a single banner — through stores which generally constitute independent companies — are in fact included in the exempt band or are subject to one of the lower tax rates following that band, with the result that the proportion of the tax paid by companies under foreign ownership of the total tax collected through the special tax is substantially higher than in the case of taxable persons under domestic ownership, compatible with the provisions of the FEU Treaty governing the principles of non-discrimination (Articles 18 TFEU and 26 TFEU), freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU), equal treatment (Article 54 TFEU), equal treatment as regards financial participation in the capital of companies or firms within the meaning of Article 54 TFEU (Article 55 TFEU), freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU), free movement of capital (Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU) and equality of taxation of companies (Article 110 TFEU)?

                  2.

                  Is the fact that taxable persons which operate a number of retail establishments through a single company and which are engaged in store retail trade in fact have to pay the special tax corresponding to the highest band of a steeply progressive tax rate, whereas taxable persons under domestic ownership which are their direct competitors and which operate as a franchise under a single banner — through stores which generally constitute independent companies — are in fact included in the exempt band or are subject to one of the lower tax rates following that band, with the result that the proportion of the tax paid by companies under foreign ownership of the total tax collected through the special tax is substantially higher than in the case of taxable persons under domestic ownership, compatible with the provisions of the FEU Treaty governing the principle of the prohibition of State aid (Article 107(1) TFEU)?

                  3.

                  Must Articles 107 TFEU and 108(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that their effects extend to a tax measure which is intrinsically linked to a tax exemption (constituting State aid) financed by means of the tax receipts generated by the tax measure, inasmuch as the legislature has achieved the amount of budgetary revenue forecast, which was fixed before the introduction of the special tax on retail trade (based on the turnover of market operators), through the application of a progressive tax rate based on turnover and not through the introduction of a standard tax rate, meaning that the legislation deliberately seeks to grant a tax exemption to some market operators?

                  4.

                  Is a practice of the bodies of a Member State with responsibility for applying the law, whereby, during tax inspections commenced ex officio or subsequent court proceedings it is not possible — despite the principle of effectiveness and the obligation to disapply an incompatible provision of national law — to submit an application for a refund of tax set under a national tax provision which is contrary to EU law, on the ground that the tax authority or the court examines the issue of incompatibility with EU law only in special proceedings commenced on application by a party which may be brought prior to the ex officio procedure, whereas, as far as tax which has been set in breach of national law is concerned, there is nothing to prevent an application for a refund from being submitted in proceedings before the tax authority or a court, compatible with the principle of procedural equivalence and the principles of effectiveness and the primacy of EU law?


title: Case T-445/18: Action brought on 16 July 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/18

      Action brought on 16 July 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
      (Case T-445/18)
      (2018/C 311/19)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Application for registration No 2 791 416

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 January 2018 in Case R 1270/2007-1

         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 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(2) of the German Law on trade marks;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(3) of the German Law on trade marks;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 63 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.


title: Case T-442/18: Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Aeris Invest v ECB

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/15

      Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Aeris Invest v ECB
      (Case T-442/18)
      (2018/C 311/16)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Chimenos Minguella and G. Ferrer Gonzálvez, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Annul European Central Bank Decisions LS/MD/18/141 and LS/PT/2018/9 of 8 May and 9 February 2018, respectively;

                  —

                  Order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present application seeks the annulment of the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) Decision LS/MD/18/141 of 8 May 2018 concerning the confirmatory application for access to ECB documents, together with the previous European Central Bank Decision LS/PT/2018/9 of 9 February 2018 concerning the application for access to ECB documents.
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a failure to give adequate reasons for the ECB’s decisions refusing access to the documentation concerned, as those decisions failed to give due consideration to the aims pursued by the Community legislature in establishing the right of natural and legal persons to access documents of the European institutions, in the context of a transparent procedure and in the light of the principles of good governance and citizen participation. Moreover, the arguments put forward by the ECB are general in nature. Similarly, the ECB has failed to take into account the fact that the disclosure of the documents requested can in no way affect the smooth progress of the decision-making procedure in the context of the resolution of credit institutions. Not only has the specific resolution procedure been concluded, but it is now under judicial review, so that the refusal of access makes that review more difficult for the Court itself. Lastly, the decisions fail to take into account the fact that access to the documentation requested is for the sole purpose of exercising the right to an effective remedy laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions infringe Article 4(1)(c) of Decision ECB/2004/3 on public access to European Central Bank documents, in so far as those decisions refuse the applicant access to the information requested on the ground that the documents are, in whole or in part, covered by a general presumption of non-accessibility as they are confidential documents covered by the professional secrecy applicable to the institutions. That general presumption of non-accessibility is not expressly provided for in the sector-specific legislation applicable and, if it did exist, it would not be applicable, as the exceptions to the right of access cannot be interpreted broadly and on the basis of analogy.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions breach Article 4(1)(c) of Decision ECB/2004/3, in so far as those decisions refuse the applicant access to the information requested on the ground that the documents are, in whole or in part, covered by the professional secrecy applicable to the institutions, when they are required in judicial proceedings and such refusal prevents or impedes the exercise of the public judicial function.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions breach Article 4(1)(a), second and sixth indents, of Decision ECB/2004/3, in so far as they assert that the disclosure of the information requested may prejudice the banking system in general.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions breach Article 4(2), first indent, of Decision ECB/2004/3, in asserting that the disclosure of the documents and information requested may affect the business interests of Banco Santander and have an impact on future inspections.


title: Case C-406/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 20 June 2018 — PG v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/8

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 20 June 2018 — PG v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
      (Case C-406/18)
      (2018/C 311/08)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: PG

         Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Can Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 31 of Directive 2013/3[2]/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) (known as the ‘Procedures Directive’) be interpreted, in the light of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as meaning that it is possible for effective judicial protection to be guaranteed in a Member State even if its courts cannot amend decisions given in asylum procedures but may only annul them and order that a new procedure be conducted?

                  2.

                  Can Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 31 of Directive 2013/3[2]/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (known as the ‘Procedures Directive’) be interpreted, again in the light of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as meaning that legislation of a Member State which lays down a single mandatory time limit of 60 days in total for judicial proceedings in asylum matters, irrespective of any individual circumstances and without regard to the particular features of the case or any potential difficulties in relation to evidence, is compatible with those provisions?

         (1)  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 (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).


title: Case T-446/18: Action brought on 16 July 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/19

      Action brought on 16 July 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
      (Case T-446/18)
      (2018/C 311/20)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Application for registration No 4 295 069

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 in Case R 1589/2007-1

         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 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(2) of the German Law on trade marks;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(3) of the German Law on trade marks;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 63 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.


title: Case T-449/18: Action brought on 19 July 2018 — Ortlieb Sportartikel v EUIPO (Octogon)

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/20

      Action brought on 19 July 2018 — Ortlieb Sportartikel v EUIPO (Octogon)
      (Case T-449/18)
      (2018/C 311/21)
      Language of the application: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Ortlieb Sportartikel GmbH (Heilsbronn, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulf and K. Schmidt-Hern, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of an octogon) — Application for registration No 16 047 466

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2018 in Case R 1634/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-564/17: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — So v Council and Commission

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/20

      Order of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — So v Council and Commission
      (Case T-564/17) (1)

      (2018/C 311/22)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.


title: Case T-783/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — GE Healthcare v Commission (Application for interim measures — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Suspension of the marketing authorisation for contrast agents containing gadolinium for human use — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/50

      Order of the President of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — GE Healthcare v Commission
      (Case T-783/17 R)
      ((Application for interim measures - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Suspension of the marketing authorisation for contrast agents containing gadolinium for human use - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))
      (2018/C 328/68)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: GE Healthcare A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: D. Scannell, Barrister, G. Castle and S. Oryszczuk, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 7941 final of 23 November 2017, concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations for gadolinimum-containing contrast agents for human use which contain one or more of the active substances ‘gadobenic acid, gadobutrol, gadodiamide, gadopentetic acid, gadoteric acid, gadoteridol, gadoversetamide and gadoxetic acid’.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-438/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Concept of an undertaking — Economic succession — Single and continuous infringement — Evidence of the infringement — Public distancing — Duration of participation — Equal treatment — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission
      (Case T-438/14) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Concept of an undertaking - Economic succession - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence of the infringement - Public distancing - Duration of participation - Equal treatment - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))
      (2018/C 328/43)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Silec Cable SAS (Montereau-Fault-Yonne, France) and General Cable Corp. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: I. Sinan, Barrister, and I. De Beni, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by D. Bailey, Barrister)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on the applicants in that decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Silec Cable SAS and General Cable Corp. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case C-96/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.° 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Consequences of a disciplinary dismissal found to be ‘unfair’ — Definition of ‘working conditions’ — Temporary worker with a contract of indefinite duration — Difference in treatment between permanent workers and temporary workers with a fixed-term contract or contract of indefinite duration — Reinstatement of the worker or granting of compensation)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/11

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa
      (Case C-96/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Consequences of a disciplinary dismissal found to be ‘unfair’ - Definition of ‘working conditions’ - Temporary worker with a contract of indefinite duration - Difference in treatment between permanent workers and temporary workers with a fixed-term contract or contract of indefinite duration - Reinstatement of the worker or granting of compensation))
      (2018/C 328/12)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi

         Defendant: Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

         Operative part of the judgment

      Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which, when the disciplinary dismissal of a permanent worker in the service of a public authority is declared wrongful, the worker in question must be reinstated, whereas, in the same situation, a worker employed under a temporary contract or a temporary contract of indefinite duration performing the same duties as that permanent worker need not be reinstated but instead may receive compensation.

         (1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


title: Case T-224/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PV v Commission (Interim measures — Civil Service — Psychological harassment — Decisions taken by the Commission following dismissal — Disciplinary proceedings — Reassignment — Setting the salary at ‘zero’ — Application for interim measures — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Partial inadmissibility — No prima facie case — No urgency)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/51

      Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PV v Commission
      (Case T-224/18 R)
      ((Interim measures - Civil Service - Psychological harassment - Decisions taken by the Commission following dismissal - Disciplinary proceedings - Reassignment - Setting the salary at ‘zero’ - Application for interim measures - Manifest inadmissibility of the main action - Partial inadmissibility - No prima facie case - No urgency))
      (2018/C 328/69)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: PV (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, B. Mongin and R. Striani, acting as agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, the suspension of the operation of, first, disciplinary procedure CMS 13/087, second, disciplinary procedure CMS 17/025, third, the decision to reinstate the applicant, fourth, the decision to set the applicant’s salary at zero and, on the other hand, the adoption of an interim measure assigning the applicant to the staff association ‘Generation 2004’ or to another Directorate General of the Commission.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to give a ruling on the application to suspend the operation of disciplinary procedure CMS 13/087.

                  2.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed as to the remainder.

                  3.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-475/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Illegal nature of the inspection decision — Reasonable time — Principle of sound administration — Principle of personal responsibility — Joint and several liability for payment of the fine — Sufficient proof of the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi v Commission
      (Case T-475/14) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Illegal nature of the inspection decision - Reasonable time - Principle of sound administration - Principle of personal responsibility - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine - Sufficient proof of the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction))
      (2018/C 328/55)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Prysmian SpA (Milan, Italy) and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Milan) (represented by: C. Tesauro, F. Russo, L. Armati and C. Toniolo, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, L. Malferrari, P. Rossi and H. van Vliet, and subsequently by C. Giolito, P. Rossi and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by S. Kingston, Barrister)

         Intervener in support of the applicants: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J. Koponen and A. Mangiaracina, lawyers)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Pirelli & C. SpA (Milan) (represented by: M. Siragusa, G. Rizza, P. Ferrari, F. Moretti and A. Fava, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear their own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Pirelli & C. SpA to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case C-103/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Messer France SAS, formerly Praxair v Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 92/12/EEC — Article 3(2) — Directive 2003/96/EC — Articles 3 and 18 — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Excise duties — Existence of another indirect tax — Conditions — National legislation providing for a contribution to the public electricity service — Definition of ‘specific purposes’ — Compliance with a minimum level of taxation)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/12

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Messer France SAS, formerly Praxair v Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer
      (Case C-103/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Directive 92/12/EEC - Article 3(2) - Directive 2003/96/EC - Articles 3 and 18 - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Excise duties - Existence of another indirect tax - Conditions - National legislation providing for a contribution to the public electricity service - Definition of ‘specific purposes’ - Compliance with a minimum level of taxation))
      (2018/C 328/13)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Messer France SAS, formerly Praxair

         Defendants: Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The second subparagraph of Article 18(10) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that, until 1 January 2009, compliance with the minimum rates of taxation laid down in that directive was, in the context of rules on the taxation of electricity laid down by EU law, the only obligation incumbent on the French Republic.

                  2.

                  Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products must be interpreted as meaning that levying another indirect tax on electricity is not conditional on the imposition of a harmonised excise duty and that, since a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not constitute such an excise duty, its compatibility with Directives 92/12 and 2003/96 must be assessed in the light of the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12 for determining the existence of other indirect taxes for specific purposes.

                  3.

                  Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12 must be interpreted as meaning that a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings may be classified as ‘another indirect tax’ as regards its environmental objective, which is intended to finance additional costs resulting from the obligation to purchase green energy, but not as regards its objectives of territorial and social cohesion, such as the geographical price-balancing mechanism and the reduction in the price of electricity for low-income households, or as regards its purely administrative objectives, including the financing of costs inherent in the administrative operations of public authorities or institutions such as the médiateur national de l’énergie and the Caisse des dépôts et consignations, subject to verification by the referring court of compliance with the tax rules applicable for excise duty purposes.

                  4.

                  EU law must be interpreted as meaning that the taxable persons concerned are entitled to partial reimbursement of a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings in the proportion in which revenue raised from that tax was allocated to non-specific objectives, provided that that tax was not directly passed on by the taxable persons to their own customers, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


title: Case T-73/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — RS v Commission (Civil service — Temporary agents — Recruitment — Internal competition — Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants — Eligibility condition relating to the requirement of 12 months’ continuous employment before the expiry of the deadline for submitting an application — Leave on personal grounds — Non-admission to the tests in a competition)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/24

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — RS v Commission
      (Case T-73/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Temporary agents - Recruitment - Internal competition - Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants - Eligibility condition relating to the requirement of 12 months’ continuous employment before the expiry of the deadline for submitting an application - Leave on personal grounds - Non-admission to the tests in a competition))
      (2018/C 392/28)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: RS (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Bersheid and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of the jury of internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the application of the applicant and, second, compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the jury of internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the application of RS;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.


title: Case C-511/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 August 2018 — La Quadrature du Net, French Data Network, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs, Igwan.net v Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministre des Armées

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/7

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 August 2018 — La Quadrature du Net, French Data Network, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs, Igwan.net v Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministre des Armées
      (Case C-511/18)
      (2018/C 392/10)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: La Quadrature du Net, French Data Network, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs, Igwan.net

         Defendants: Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministre des Armées

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the general and indiscriminate retention obligation imposed on providers on the basis of the permissive provisions of Article 15(1) of Directive [2002/58/EC] of 12 July 2002 (1) to be regarded, against a background of serious and persistent threats to national security, and in particular the terrorist threat, as interference justified by the right to security guaranteed in Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirements of national security, responsibility for which falls to the Member States alone pursuant to Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union?

                  2.

                  Is the Directive of 12 July 2002, read in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as authorising legislative measures, such as the real-time measures for the collection of the traffic and location data of specified individuals, which, whilst affecting the rights and obligations of the providers of an electronic communications service, do not however require them to comply with a specific obligation to retain their data?

                  3.

                  Is the Directive of 12 July 2002, read in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as making the legality of the procedures for the collection of connection data subject in all cases to a requirement that the persons concerned are duly informed once such information is no longer liable to jeopardise the investigations being undertaken by the competent authorities, or may such procedures be regarded as lawful taking into account all the other existing procedural guarantees, since those guarantees ensure that the right to a remedy is effective?

         (1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).


title: Case T-739/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — PSC Prominvestbank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Inclusion of the name of the entity owning the applicant in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Right to effective judicial protection — Misuse of powers — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Equal treatment)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/18

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — PSC Prominvestbank v Council
      (Case T-739/14) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Inclusion of the name of the entity owning the applicant in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of powers - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business - Equal treatment))
      (2018/C 392/21)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: PSC Prominvestbank, Joint-Stock Commercial Industrial & Investment Bank (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: J.M. Viñals Camallonga, J.L. Iriarte Ángel and L. Barriola Urruticoechea, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and F. Florindo Gijón, and subsequently F. Florindo Gijón, P. Mahnič Bruni and H. Marcos Fraile, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, D. Gauci and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014, amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014, amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders PSC Prominvestbank, Joint-Stock Commercial Industrial & Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Case T-401/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — SFIE-PE v Parliament (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Strike action by interpreters — Measures for the requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Application for interim measures — Partial inadmissibility — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/31

      Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — SFIE-PE v Parliament
      (Case T-401/18 R)
      ((Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Strike action by interpreters - Measures for the requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - Application for interim measures - Partial inadmissibility - Weighing up of interests))
      (2018/C 392/38)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens — Section du Parlement européen (SFIE-PE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Re:

      Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of the operation of the decisions of the European Parliament of 2 and 3 July 2018 concerning the requisition of interpreters and future decisions concerning the requisition of interpreters for 5, 10 and 11 July 2018 and, second, an order requiring the Parliament to limit requisitions of interpreters in future.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-104/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Apple v EUIPO — Apo International (apo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark apo — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an apple and earlier EU word marks APPLE — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Apple v EUIPO — Apo International (apo)
      (Case T-104/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark apo - Earlier EU figurative mark representing an apple and earlier EU word marks APPLE - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 392/32)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and by G. Tritton, Barrister)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Apo International Co. Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 (Case R 698/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Apo International.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 December 2016 (Case R 698/2016-4);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.


title: Case C-151/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by El Corte Inglés SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-213/16: El Corte Inglés v EUIPO

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/2

      Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by El Corte Inglés SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-213/16: El Corte Inglés v EUIPO
      (Case C-151/18 P)
      (2018/C 392/03)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: El Corte Inglés SA (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH
      By order of 6 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-402/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — Aquino and Others v Parliament (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Interpreters’ strike action — Measures of requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Application for interim measures — Inadmissible in part — Balance of interests)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/31

      Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — Aquino and Others v Parliament
      (Case T-402/18 R)
      ((Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Interpreters’ strike action - Measures of requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Application for interim measures - Inadmissible in part - Balance of interests))
      (2018/C 392/39)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Roberto Aquino (Brussels, Belgium) and the 30 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, the suspension of the application of the decisions of the European Parliament of 2 and 3 July 2018 requisitioning interpreters and future decisions requisitioning interpreters on 5, 10 and 11 July 2018 and, second, an order that the Parliament limit the requisitions of interpreters in future.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-418/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Eduard Meier v EUIPO — Calzaturificio Elisabet (Safari Club) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Safari Club — Earlier national figurative mark WS Walk Safari — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Eduard Meier v EUIPO — Calzaturificio Elisabet (Safari Club)
      (Case T-418/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Safari Club - Earlier national figurative mark WS Walk Safari - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 392/34)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Eduard Meier GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by S. Schicker and M. Knitter, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Calzaturificio Elisabet Srl (Monte Urano, Italy)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 (Case R 1158/2016-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Calzaturificio Elisabet and Eduard Meier.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 May 2017 (Case R 1158/2016-4), in so far as it upheld the opposition to registration of the EU word mark Safari Club for the goods ‘game bags’ and ‘clothing for hunting, clothing and hunting boots’;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the action;

                  3.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


title: Case C-512/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 August 2018 — French Data Network, La Quadrature du Net, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs v Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/7

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 August 2018 — French Data Network, La Quadrature du Net, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs v Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice
      (Case C-512/18)
      (2018/C 392/11)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: French Data Network, La Quadrature du Net, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs

         Defendants: Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the general and indiscriminate retention obligation imposed on providers on the basis of the permissive provisions of Article 15(1) of Directive [2002/58/EC] of 12 July 2002 (1) to be regarded, inter alia in the light of the guarantees and checks to which the collection and use of such connection data are then subject, as interference justified by the right to security guaranteed in Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirements of national security, responsibility for which falls to the Member States alone pursuant to Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union?

                  2.

                  Are the provisions of Directive [2000/31/EC] of 8 June 2000 (2), read in the light of Articles 6, 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as allowing a State to introduce national legislation requiring the persons whose activity consists in offering access to online public communications services and the natural or legal persons who, even free of charge, and for provision to the public via online public communications services, store signals, writing, images, sounds or messages of any kind provided by recipients of those services to retain the data capable of enabling the identification of anyone who has contributed to the creation of the content or some of the content of the services which they provide, so that the judicial authority may, where appropriate, require the communication of those data with a view to ensuring compliance with the rules on civil and criminal liability?

         (1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).

         (2)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 19.


title: Case T-652/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Eddy’s Snack Company v EUIPO — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Eddy’s Snackcompany) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Eddy’s Snackcompany — Earlier national word mark TEDDY — Relative ground for refusal — Principle of ne ultra petita — Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Eddy’s Snack Company v EUIPO — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Eddy’s Snackcompany)
      (Case T-652/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Eddy’s Snackcompany - Earlier national word mark TEDDY - Relative ground for refusal - Principle of ne ultra petita - Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 392/35)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH (Lügde, Germany) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2017 (Case R 1999/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli and Eddy’s Snack Company.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 July 2017 (Case R 1999/2016-4);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH in the proceedings before the General Court.

         (1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.


title: Case C-246/18 P: Appeal brought on 6 April 2018 by Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2018 in Case T-775/16: Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/3

      Appeal brought on 6 April 2018 by Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2018 in Case T-775/16: Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO
      (Case C-246/18 P)
      (2018/C 392/04)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (represented by: R. Žabolienė, advokatė, I. Lukauskienė, advokatė)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO
      By order of 6 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-518/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 August 2018 — RD v SC

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/8

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 August 2018 — RD v SC
      (Case C-518/18)
      (2018/C 392/12)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Referring court

      Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: RD

         Defendant: SC

         Question referred

      Must Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that a claim which has been decided on after taking evidence may be regarded as uncontested if neither the defendant, who acknowledged the debt before the commencement of the action, nor the guardian took part in the court proceedings, and they did not raise any objections in the course of the proceedings?

         (1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15.


title: Case T-664/16: Order of the General Court of 30 May 2018 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi) (EU trade mark — Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant — Replacement of a party to the proceedings — Transfer of the rights of the EU trade mark applicant — Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant for replacement — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/29

      Order of the General Court of 30 May 2018 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi)
      (Case T-664/16) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant - Replacement of a party to the proceedings - Transfer of the rights of the EU trade mark applicant - Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant for replacement - Inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 392/36)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: PJ (represented by: S., lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2016 (Case R 1670/2015-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Erdmann & Rossi and PJ.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action shall be dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the application for replacement.

                  3.

                  PJ is to pay the costs.

                  4.

                  [Y]-GmbH, and each party, is to bear its own costs relating to the application for replacement.

         (1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.


title: Case T-507/18: Action brought on 24 August 2018 — France v Commission

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/32

      Action brought on 24 August 2018 — France v Commission
      (Case T-507/18)
      (2018/C 392/40)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, A.-L. Desjonquères, S. Horrenberger and A. Alidière, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 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), in so far as it applies a lump-sum correction of 5 %, equal to EUR 945 435,39, concerning ‘Other Direct Aid — POSEI’, on the basis of ‘Inaccurate accounting for certain consignments of bananas’ for the financial years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016;

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging an error of law committed by the Commission in the conformity clearance procedure concerning support for bananas, in that it misinterpreted the notion of ‘marketing’ of green bananas eligible for support from the Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI) applicable to Guadeloupe and Martinique.
      First, the applicant claims that the Commission’s interpretation of that notion misconstrued the scope of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1333/2011 of 19 December 2011 laying down marketing standards for bananas, rules on the verification of compliance with those marketing standards and requirements for notifications in the banana sector (OJ 2011, L 336, p. 23).
      Secondly, it submits that the Commission’s interpretation of that notion is based on a misapplication of Article 76 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 671).


title: Case T-798/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — DenizBank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Inclusion of the name of the entity owning the applicant in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — EU-Turkey Association Agreement — Fundamental rights — Proportionality)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/19

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — DenizBank v Council
      (Case T-798/14) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Inclusion of the name of the entity owning the applicant in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - EU-Turkey Association Agreement - Fundamental rights - Proportionality))
      (2018/C 392/22)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: DenizBank A.Ş. (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: O. Jones, D. Heaton, Barristers, R. Mattick, S. Utku, Solicitors, and M. Lester QC)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially S. Boelaert and A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, and subsequently S. Boelaert and P. Mahnič Bruni, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci, L. Havas and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), by Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 58), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2431 of 21 December 2015 (OJ 2015 L 334, p. 22), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1071 of 1 July 2016 (OJ 2016 L 178, p. 21) and by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2315 of 19 December 2016 (OJ 2016 L 345, p. 65) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3) and by Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 20), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders DenizBank A.Ş. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case T-825/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Carbon System Verwaltungs v EUIPO (LIGHTBOUNCE) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark LIGHTBOUNCE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/64

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Carbon System Verwaltungs v EUIPO (LIGHTBOUNCE)
      (Case T-825/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark LIGHTBOUNCE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/85)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Carbon System Verwaltungs GmbH (Marktheidenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Gilch and L. Petri, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2017 (Case R 2301/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign LIGHTBOUNCE as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Carbon System Verwaltungs GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case T-550/18: Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Harrington Padrón/Council

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/86

      Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Harrington Padrón/Council
      (Case T-550/18)
      (2018/C 427/113)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far 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 two pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

         (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

         (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).


title: Case T-682/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — France v Commission (EAGF — Area-linked aid — Procedure for the suspension of monthly payments to a Member State — Article 41(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Key components of the national control system — Deficiencies found — Action plan including clear progress indicators established in consultation with the Commission — Proportionality)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/45

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — France v Commission
      (Case T-682/16) (1)

      (EAGF - Area-linked aid - Procedure for the suspension of monthly payments to a Member State - Article 41(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Key components of the national control system - Deficiencies found - Action plan including clear progress indicators established in consultation with the Commission - Proportionality)
      (2018/C 427/57)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, D. Segoin, A.-L. Desjonquères and S. Horrenberger, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 4287 final of 12 July 2016 suspending monthly payments to the French Republic under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case T-551/18: Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Oblitas Ruzza/Council

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/86

      Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Oblitas Ruzza/Council
      (Case T-551/18)
      (2018/C 427/114)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sandra Oblitas Ruzza (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far 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 two pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

         (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

         (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).


title: Case C-590/18 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2018 by Fujikura Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-451/14: Fujikura v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/21

      Appeal brought on 20 September 2018 by Fujikura Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-451/14: Fujikura v Commission
      (Case C-590/18 P)
      (2018/C 427/29)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Fujikura Ltd (represented by: L. Gyselen, lawyer)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Viscas Corp.

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the General Court’s judgment in so far as it upheld the plea in law alleging an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment with regard to the fine imposed upon it;

                  —

                  give final judgment in accordance with Article 61, first paragraph, second sentence, of its Statute by:

                              —

                              annulling Article 2(o) of the Commission’s decision (1) of 2 April 2014 imposing a fine of EUR 8 152 000 upon Fujikura Ltd.; and

                              —

                              reducing this fine by 44 % to EUR 4 565 120;

                  —

                  order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The General Court erred in law by validating the Commission's approach to apply Point 18 of its 2006 Guidelines (2) as if the entire infringement only covered the ‘worldwide part’ of the cartel and did not have an ‘intra-EEA part’ involving only the European suppliers.
      As a result, the Commission determined the notional values of sales for the cartel participants in a way that significantly undervalued the role of the European suppliers and overvalued the role of the Asian suppliers, including Fujikura, in this infringement.

         (1)  Commission Decision of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) (notified under document C(2014) 2139 final) (OJ 2014, C 319, p. 10)

         (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2)


title: Case T-589/16: Order of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — HS v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Transfer of pension rights — Amount transferred — Non-contractual liability — Pre-litigation procedure — Conciliation procedure before the EIB — Reasonable period — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/66

      Order of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — HS v EIB
      (Case T-589/16)
      (Civil service - EIB staff - Transfer of pension rights - Amount transferred - Non-contractual liability - Pre-litigation procedure - Conciliation procedure before the EIB - Reasonable period - Manifest inadmissibility)
      (2018/C 427/87)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: HS (represented by: A. Senes and L. Payot, then A. Senes, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Nuvoli, P. Kijver and G. Faedo initially, then T. Gilliams, P. Kijver and G. Faedo, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application, on the basis of Article 270 TFEU, seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of errors committed by the EIB in the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights from the national pension scheme to the EIB pension scheme.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  HS shall pay the costs.


title: Case C-326/18 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2018 by Safe Skies LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2018 in Case T-60/17: Safe Skies v EUIPO

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/2

      Appeal brought on 17 May 2018 by Safe Skies LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2018 in Case T-60/17: Safe Skies v EUIPO
      (Case C-326/18 P)
      (2018/C 427/03)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Safe Skies LLC (represented by: V. Schwepler, Rechtsanwältin)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
      By order of 4 October 2018 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-552/18: Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Moreno Reyes/Council

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/87

      Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Moreno Reyes/Council
      (Case T-552/18)
      (2018/C 427/115)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Xavier Antonio Moreno Reyes (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far 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 two pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

         (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

         (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).