201807270262024312018/C 285/233602017CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170609141412Case C-360/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Nicole Hofmann v TUIfly GmbH
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN1420120170609EN0023142141Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Nicole Hofmann v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-360/17)2018/C 285/23Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nicole Hofmann

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
   By decision of the Court of Justice of 28 May 2018 the case was removed from the Court’s register.


201807270552025292018/C 285/463722018CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180607292911Case C-372/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy (France) lodged on 7 June 2018 — Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics v Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN2910120180607EN0046291291Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy (France) lodged on 7 June 2018 — Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics v Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer
   (Case C-372/18)2018/C 285/46Language of the case: French
      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

      Respondents: Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer

      Question referred

   Do the contributions allocated to the Caisse nationale de solidarité pour l’autonomie (National Solidarity Fund for Independent Living), which contribute to the funding of the benefits in question, have a direct and sufficiently relevant link with certain branches of social security listed in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (
         1
      ) and do they therefore come within the scope of that regulation solely on the ground that those benefits relate to one of the risks set out in that Article 3 and are granted without any discretionary assessment on the basis of a legally defined position?
   (
         1
      )	Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).


201807270392024402018/C 285/243612017CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170609141523Case C-361/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Ole Feuser v TUIfly GmbH
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN1430120170609EN0024143152Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Ole Feuser v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-361/17)2018/C 285/24Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ole Feuser

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
   By decision of the Court of Justice of 28 May 2018 the case was removed from the Court’s register.


201807270212024882018/C 285/473762018CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180607303121Case C-376/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 7 June 2018 — Slovenské elektrárne a.s. v Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN3010120180607EN0047301312Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 7 June 2018 — Slovenské elektrárne a.s. v Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty
   (Case C-376/18)2018/C 285/47Language of the case: Slovak
      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Slovenské elektrárne a.s.

      Defendant: Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty

      Questions referred

            1.

            Must Directive 2009/72/EC (
                  1
               ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (‘Third Electricity Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which establishes a special measure consisting of a compulsory levy on regulated entities, including the holders of an authorisation to supply electricity granted by the competent regulatory authority of the Member State concerned (‘the regulated entity’ and ‘the Office’ respectively), set in accordance with the financial performance which they achieved not only at national level but also from activity abroad, is contrary to the objective thereof, and in particular Article 3 thereof, where that levy

                     (i)

                     affects the freedom of regulated entities to set a fully competitive price for the supply of electricity on foreign electricity markets, and thus also the competitive process on those markets;

                     (ii)

                     reduces the competitiveness of the regulated entities in comparison with foreign electricity suppliers operating on the Slovak electricity market where both supply electricity to a particular foreign market since the foreign operator is not subject to such a compulsory levy in respect of the supply of electricity abroad;

                     (iii)

                     discourages new competitors from entering the electricity supply market in the Slovak Republic and abroad since such a compulsory levy would apply equally to revenue from their non-regulated activities even if, subsequently during a particular period, they were to hold an authorisation to supply electricity but the revenue they received from that supply was zero; and

                     (iv)

                     may induce Slovak regulated entities to ask the [Slovak] Office — or foreign electricity suppliers to ask the regulatory authority of the respective State of origin which issued them — to revoke the authorisation to supply electricity since for an entity who does not wish the proceeds from its other activities to be subject to the levy in question, revocation of that authorisation is the only way of ridding itself of the status of regulated entity laid down by the legislation at issue?

            2.

            Must the Third Electricity Directive be interpreted as meaning that it is not possible to include among the measures which the Third Electricity Directive permits a Member State to adopt, even where they conflict with the objective which the directive pursues, a special measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, consisting of a compulsory levy on regulated entities, including the holders of an authorisation to supply electricity granted by the Office, set in accordance with their financial performance, including performance from activity abroad, given that that measure does not constitute a tool to combat climate change and does not serve to guarantee the supply of electricity or pursue any other objective of the Third Electricity Directive?

            3.

            Must the Third Electricity Directive be interpreted as meaning that national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which establishes a special measure consisting of a compulsory levy on regulated entities, including the holders of an authorisation to supply electricity granted by the Office, set in accordance with their financial performance, including performance achieved from activity abroad, fails to satisfy the requirements relating to transparency [Or. 3], non-discrimination and equality of access to consumers as provided for in Article 3 of the directive since — in the case of a regulated entity — it also affects revenue obtained (from the supply of electricity or other means) abroad whereas — in the case of the holder of an authorisation to provide energy on the basis of a ‘passport’ authorisation to supply electricity granted in the relevant State of origin — it affects only the revenue obtained in the Slovak Republic?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.


201807270592024602018/C 285/483842018CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180608313111Case C-384/18: Action brought on 8 June 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN3110120180608EN0048311311Action brought on 8 June 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-384/18)2018/C 285/48Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents,)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

            —

            Find that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of Directive 2006/123/EC (
                  1
               ) and Article 49 TFEU;

            —

            Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By (i) prohibiting the joint exercise of work as accountants, on the one hand, and as brokers, insurance agents, estate agents or all banking and financial services work, on the other, and by (ii) permitting the Chambers of the Institut Professionnel des Comptables et Fiscalistes Agréés (Institute of Accounting professionals and Tax Experts; IPCF) to prohibit the joint exercise of work as accountants, on the one hand, with any craft or commercial agricultural activity, on the other, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of Directive 2006/123/EC and Article 49 TFEU.
   (
         1
      )	Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).


201807270512025222018/C 285/253622017CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170609151511Case C-362/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Boris Feuser v TUIfly GmbH
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN1510120170609EN0025151151Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Boris Feuser v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-362/17)2018/C 285/25Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Boris Feuser

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
   By decision of the Court of Justice of 28 May 2018 the case was removed from the Court’s register.


201807270502024782018/C 285/263942017CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170630151512Case C-394/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 30 June 2017 — Ines Ewen v TUIfly GmbH
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN1520120170630EN0026152151Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 30 June 2017 — Ines Ewen v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-394/17)2018/C 285/26Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ines Ewen

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
   By decision of the Court of Justice of 17 May 2018 the case was removed from the Court’s register.


201807270562025242018/C 285/274032017CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170704151623Case C-403/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 July 2017 — Petra Nünemann v TUIfly GmbH
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN1530120170704EN0027153162Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 July 2017 — Petra Nünemann v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-403/17)2018/C 285/27Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Petra Nünemann

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
   By decision of the Court of Justice of 17 May 2018 the case was removed from the Court’s register.


201807270292024592018/C 285/284092017CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170707161611Case C-409/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2017 — Barbara Yvette Müller and Others v TUIfly GmbH
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN1610120170707EN0028161161Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2017 — Barbara Yvette Müller and Others v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-409/17)2018/C 285/28Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Barbara Yvette Müller, Stefanie Müller, Michelle Müller

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
   By decision of the Court of Justice of 28 May 2018 the case was removed from the Court’s register.


201807270332024512018/C 285/294292017CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170717161612Case C-429/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 July 2017 — Bially e.a. v TUIfly GmbH
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN1620120170717EN0029162161Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 July 2017 — Bially e.a. v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-429/17)2018/C 285/29Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bially e.a.

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
   By decision of the Court of Justice of 28 May 2018 the case was removed from the Court’s register.


201807270302024642018/C 285/302742018CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180423161723Case C-274/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 23 April 2018 — Minoo Schuch-Ghannadan v Medizinische Universität Wien
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN1630120180423EN0030163172Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 23 April 2018 — Minoo Schuch-Ghannadan v Medizinische Universität Wien
   (Case C-274/18)2018/C 285/30Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minoo Schuch-Ghannadan

      Defendant: Medizinische Universität Wien

      Questions referred

            1.

            Is the principle of pro rata temporis under point 2 of clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 (
                  1
               ) concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work, in conjunction with the principle of non-discrimination under point 1 of clause 4, to be applied to legislation under which the total duration of immediately consecutive employment contracts of an employee of an Austrian university working within the framework of externally funded projects or research projects is 6 years for full-time employees, but 8 years for part-time employees, and moreover, if there is objective justification, in particular for the continuation or completion of research projects or publications, a further one-off extension up to a total of 10 years for full-time employees and of 12 years for part-time employees is permissible?

            2.

            Does legislation such as that described in Question 1 constitute indirect discrimination based on sex within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) in the case where, within the group of workers subject to that legislation, a significantly higher percentage of women is affected as compared with the percentage of men so affected?

            3.

            Is Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 (
                  2
               ) on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) to be interpreted as meaning that a woman who, in the area of application of legislation such as that set out in Question 1, claims to have suffered indirect discrimination based on sex on the ground that significantly more women than men are employed on a part-time basis, must assert this fact, in particular that women are statistically much more significantly affected, by submitting specific statistics or specific facts and must substantiate this by means of appropriate evidence?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.
   (
         2
      )	OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.


201807270602025212018/C 285/312822018CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180425171821Case C-282/18 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2018 by The Green Effort Ltd against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2018 in Case T-794/17: The Green Effort Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN1710120180425EN0031171182Appeal brought on 25 April 2018 by The Green Effort Ltd against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2018 in Case T-794/17: The Green Effort Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-282/18 P)2018/C 285/31Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Appellant: The Green Effort Ltd (represented by: A. Ziehm, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            set aside the decision of the General Court (Second Chamber), 23 February 2018, Case T-794/17 in whole;

            —

            annul the contested decisions;

            —

            cancel the revocation of the registered EUTM 9 528 001;

            —

            reject the application for revocation of rights;

            —

            grant its application for ‘Restitution in integrum’;

            —

            obtain and refer to the documents in the EUIPO proceedings Cancellation 12343 C, 10757 C, 10524 C, Oppositions Proceedings B 002165119; B 002199274; B 002344565; B 002367038; B 002513086, and B 002513151;

            —

            order EUIPO and the Cancellation Applicant to pay their own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant is basing the appeal on the following six grounds of appeal, whereby the General Court’s ruling was based on the 1st ground of appeal and the 2nd to 6th grounds show that the decision does not prove to be correct for other reasons.
   1st ground of appeal: Infringement Article 3 (4) Decision No. 17-4 of the Executive Director of the Office of 16 August 2017 concerning communication by electronic means.
   Arguments in support of the appeal: The General Court disregarded the fact that a notification shall be deemed to have taken place on the fifth calendar day following the day on which the document was created by EUIPO’s systems. For this reason the General Court incorrectly calculated the period for bringing an action against the decision of 11 September 2017 of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO.
   2nd ground of appeal: the appeal must be declared well-founded since the contested EUIPO decisions infringe the appellant’s rights because the application for revocation by the Cancellation Applicant was inadmissible due to bad faith and incorrect statement of facts.
   3rd ground of appeal: the appeal must be declared well-founded since the contested EUIPO decisions infringe the appellant’s rights because the proprietor’s proof of genuine use has been submitted to EUIPO within the lawful time limits under Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2868/95 (
         1
      ).
   4th ground of appeal: the appeal must be declared well-founded since the contested EUIPO decisions infringe the appellant’s rights because the proprietor’s proof of genuine use was submitted to EUIPO within the time limits set by EUIPO.
   5th ground of appeal: the appeal must be declared well-founded since the contested EUIPO decisions infringe the appellant’s rights because, if EUIPO failed to receive the genuine proof of use by means of the electronic communication system and/or by fax transmission, then this was due to technical failures in those systems.
   6th ground of appeal: the appeal must be declared well-founded since the contested EUIPO decisions infringe the appellant’s rights because EUIPO, and subsequently the Second Board of Appeal, have wrongfully denied the appellant’s application for restitutio in integrum.
   (
         1
      )	Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995, L 303, p. 1).


201807270462025152018/C 285/322892018CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180426191911Case C-289/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 26 April 2018 — KAMU Passenger & IT Services GmbH v Türk Hava Yollari A.O. — T.H.Y. Turkish Airlines
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN1910120180426EN0032191191Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 26 April 2018 — KAMU Passenger & IT Services GmbH v Türk Hava Yollari A.O. — T.H.Y. Turkish Airlines
   (Case C-289/18)2018/C 285/32Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: KAMU Passenger & IT Services GmbH

      Defendant: Türk Hava Yollari A.O. — T.H.Y. Turkish Airlines

      Question referred

   Is an onward flight from the destination airport of the preceding flight which a passenger booked together with the first flight and for which he obtained just one ticket with one ticket number, where there is a scheduled period of just over 13 hours between the two flights, to be classified as a ‘directly connecting flight’ within the meaning of Article 2(h) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council? (
         1
      )
   (
         1
      )	Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


201807270482025202018/C 285/332992018CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180502192022Case C-299/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2018 — Stefan Neldner v Eurowings GmbH
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN1920120180502EN0033192202Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2018 — Stefan Neldner v Eurowings GmbH
   (Case C-299/18)2018/C 285/33Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Landgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stefan Neldner

      Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

      Questions referred

            1.

            May compensation under Article 7 of the regulation (
                  1
               ) be deducted from compensation granted under national law which is intended to reimburse additional travel costs incurred as a result of the cancellation of a booked flight if the air carrier has fulfilled its obligations under Article 8(1) of the regulation?

            2.

            If deduction is possible: does it also apply to the costs of alternative transportation to a destination other than the final destination of the flight if the passenger turns down alternative transport offered by the air carrier to the final destination of the flight?

            3.

            In so far as deduction is possible: may the air carrier make the deduction in all cases or is it dependent on the extent to which it is permitted by national law or the court considers it equitable?

            4.

            In so far as national law is applicable or the court is required to take a discretionary decision: is the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation intended to redress only the inconvenience and the loss of time suffered by passengers as a result of the cancellation, or is it also intended to address material damage?

      (
         1
      )	Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


201807270192025272018/C 285/343012018CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504202011Case C-301/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 4 May 2018 — Thomas Leonhard v DSL Bank
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN2010120180504EN0034201201Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 4 May 2018 — Thomas Leonhard v DSL Bank
   (Case C-301/18)2018/C 285/34Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Landgericht Bonn

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Thomas Leonhard

      Defendant: DSL Bank

      Question referred

   Is Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/65/EC (
         1
      ) to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that, after withdrawal from a distance consumer loan contract has been declared, the supplier must also pay to the consumer, beyond the sum he has received from the consumer in accordance with the distance contract, compensation for the benefit of use in respect of this sum?
   (
         1
      )	Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).


201807270612024322018/C 285/353222018CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180514202122Case C-322/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2018 — Schiaffini Travel SpA v Comune di Latina
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN2020120180514EN0035202212Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2018 — Schiaffini Travel SpA v Comune di Latina
   (Case C-322/18)2018/C 285/35Language of the case: Italian
      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schiaffini Travel SpA

      Defendant: Comune di Latina

      Questions referred

            1.

            Does Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (
                  1
               ) (in particular, the prohibition, laid down in subparagraphs (b) and (d), on the participation of internal operators in extra moenia tendering procedures) apply equally where a contract has been awarded prior to the entry into force of that regulation?

            2.

            May a legal person governed by public law which has been directly awarded a contract by a State authority for the provision of local transport services and which has a direct relationship with the State authority in terms of organisation and control and whose capital is owned by the State (either wholly or in part, together with other public entities) be regarded, in the abstract, as an ‘internal operator’ within the meaning of the regulation and, as the case may be, by analogy with the case-law on the subject of ‘in house provision’?

            3.

            In the case of the direct award of a contract for the provision of services falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, if, after that award, the State authority in question (while itself retaining sole power to award concessions) establishes a public administrative authority that has power to organise the services in question but does not have ‘similar control’ over the contractor, does that fact take the award in question outside the scope of the rules in Article 5(2) of the regulation?

            4.

            If the date of expiry of a directly awarded contract falls after the end of the 30-year period ending on 3 December 2039 (that period commencing on the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007) does that render the award inconsistent with the principles laid down in the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 8(3) of the regulation, or may such an irregularity be regarded as automatically remedied, for all legal purposes, by an implied shortening of the length of the contract by operation of law (Article 8(3)), so as to fall within the 30-year period?

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


201807270492024492018/C 285/363242018CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180515212221Case C-324/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 May 2018 — Sicilville Srl v Comune di Brescia
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN2110120180515EN0036211222Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 May 2018 — Sicilville Srl v Comune di Brescia
   (Case C-324/18)2018/C 285/36Language of the case: Italian
      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Sicilville Srl

      Respondent: Comune di Brescia

      Question referred

   Does EU law, more specifically Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU (
         1
      ) on public procurement, in conjunction with recital 101 of the directive and the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, preclude national legislation, such as that at issue, which categorises ‘grave professional misconduct’ as a mandatory ground of exclusion of an economic operator and provides that, where the professional misconduct has led to the early termination of a public contract, the operator may be excluded only if the termination is not contested or is confirmed at the conclusion of judicial proceedings?
   (
         1
      )	Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


201808030282049792018/C 294/433862018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180611313221Case C-386/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2018 — Coöperatieve Producentenorganisatie en Beheersgroep Texel UA v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN3110120180611EN0043311322Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2018 — Coöperatieve Producentenorganisatie en Beheersgroep Texel UA v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-386/18)2018/C 294/43Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Coöperatieve Producentenorganisatie en Beheersgroep Texel UA

      Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

      Questions referred

            1(a)

            Does Article 66(1) of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 (
                  1
               ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Regulation 508/2014’), given that it provides that the EMFF ‘shall’ support the preparation and implementation of production and marketing plans referred to in Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 (
                  2
               ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 (‘Regulation 1379/2013’), preclude a Member State from responding to a producer organisation which has submitted an application for such a grant, by arguing that the Member State concerned had not made available, either in its operational programme approved by the European Commission, or in the national rules for determining the eligibility of expenditure, the possibility of making such an application at the time of the submission of the application for a certain category of expenditure (in the present case: the costs of the preparation and implementation of production and marketing plans) or for a certain period (in the present case: the year 2014)?

            1(b)

            Is it relevant to the answer to question 1(a) that the producer organisation is obliged, under Article 28(1) of Regulation No 1379/2013, to draw up a production and marketing plan and, after approval of the production and marketing plan by the Member State, to implement that production and marketing plan?

            2.

            If the answer to question 1(a) is that Article 66(1) of Regulation 508/2014 precludes a Member State from responding to a producer organisation which has submitted an application for a grant for the preparation and implementation of production and marketing plans by arguing that the Member State concerned had not made available the possibility of making such an application at the time of the submission of the application, can the grant applicant concerned then rely directly on Article 66(1) of Regulation 508/2014 as the legal basis for a claim against his Member State on the provision of the grant in question?

            3.

            If the answer to question 2 is that, in the case referred to in question 2, the grant applicant concerned can rely directly on Article 66(1) of Regulation 508/2014 as the legal basis for a claim against his Member State on the provision of the grant in question, does Article 65(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 (
                  3
               ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (‘Regulation 1303/2013’) then preclude the provision of a grant for the preparation and implementation of a production and implementation plan in a situation where the grant application is submitted after the production and marketing plan has been prepared and implemented?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2014 L 149, p. 1.
   (
         2
      )	OJ 2013 L 354, p. 1.
   (
         3
      )	OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320.


title: Case T-430/18: Action brought on 10 July 2018 — American Airlines/Commission

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/21

      Action brought on 10 July 2018 — American Airlines/Commission
      (Case T-430/18)
      (2018/C 319/25)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: American Airlines, Inc. (Fort Worth, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Poitras, Solicitor, J. Ruiz Calzado and J. Wileur, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Grandfathering Approval Decision (Decision C(2018) 2788 of 30 April 2018);

                  —

                  order the Commission and any interveners in support of the Commission to pay the costs; and

                  —

                  making any other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicant submits that that the European Commission committed both errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in adopting decision C(2018) 2788 of 30 April 2018 in which the Commission determined that Delta was entitled to acquire grandfathering rights over the slots made available by American Airlines under the commitments submitted in Case M.6607 (the ‘Commitments’).
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law in applying the wrong legal standard for the acquisition of grandfathering rights under the Commitments.
                  The applicant submits that in assessing whether Delta had made ‘appropriate use’ of the slots pursuant to the Commitments, the Commission decided that the only analysis to be undertaken was to verify that Delta was not in a situation of ‘misuse’. The applicants further puts forward that, contrary to the Commission’s position, an examination of the wording, context and objective of the Commitments leads to the conclusion that ‘absence of misuse’ is not relevant, and that the correct interpretation of the concept of ‘appropriate use’ in the Commitments would have required the Commission to verify whether the use of the slots was ‘in accordance with the bid’ that Delta formally submitted to receive the slots.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment in determining that Delta complied with the ‘appropriate use’ requirement.
                  The applicant submits that since Delta chose to depart from its bid, the Commission would have been required to determine whether this departure and the ultimate level of usage of the slots could be accepted taking into account relevant economic evidence and analysis to ensure competition and therefore consumer benefits were maximized.


title: Case T-376/18: Action brought on 14 June 2018 – Front Polisario v Council

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/16

      Action brought on 14 June 2018 – Front Polisario v Council
      (Case T-376/18)
      (2018/C 319/20)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Declare its action admissible;

                  —

                  Annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  Order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action against the Council’s decision of 16 April 2018, authorising the Commission to open negotiations, on behalf of the European Union, for the purposes of amending the Fisheries Partnership Agreement and concluding a Protocol with the Kingdom of Morocco (decision not published in the Official Journal of the European Union), the applicant relies on ten pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a lack of authority on the part of the Council to adopt the contested decision, in so far as the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco lack competence to negotiate international agreements including Western Sahara, for and on behalf of the people of that territory as represented by the Front Polisario.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to examine all the relevant aspects of the present case, in so far as, when adopting the contested decision, the Council failed to take account of the case-law of the Court on the question of Western Sahara.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to examine the question of respect for fundamental rights and international humanitarian law, in so far as it is apparent from the contested decision that the Council failed to consider the question of respect for fundamental rights and international humanitarian law.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the rights of the defence in so far as the Council failed to engage in any discussion with the Front Polisario, the sole representative of the people of Western Sahara, prior to the adoption of the contested decision.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach, on the part of the Council, of its obligation to execute the judgments of the Court, in so far as the contested decision disregards the grounds of the Court’s judgments in Cases C-104/16 P and C-266/16.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of the essential principles and values guiding the Union’s action on the international stage, since (i) the decision denies the existence of the people of Western Sahara in substituting the words ‘populations concerned’ therefor; and (ii) it authorises the opening of negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco in the context of the latter’s annexationist policy with regard to Western Sahara and the systematic breaches of fundamental rights that maintaining such a policy entails.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to self-determination, since (i) the decision denies the existence of the people of Western Sahara with regard to the right to self-determination and upsets the national unity of that people; and (ii) it authorises the opening of negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco in breach of the separate and distinct status of Western Sahara and the permanent sovereignty of the people of that territory over its natural resources.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of the relative effect of treaties, in so far as the contested decision denies the people of Western Sahara, represented by the Front Polisario, standing as a third party in EU-Morocco relations.

                  9.

                  Ninth plea in law, alleging a breach of international humanitarian law and international criminal law since (i) the negotiations, authorised by the contested decision, are being conducted in the context of the Kingdom of Morocco’s annexationist policy with regard to Western Sahara; and (ii) by using the words ‘populations concerned’, that decision endorses the illegal transfer of Moroccan colonists to occupied Sahraouian territory.

                  10.

                  Tenth plea in law, alleging breach of the Union’s obligation not to recognise illegal situations since, in authorising negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco with regard to Western Sahara, the contested decision ratifies the serious breaches of international law committed by the Moroccan occupying forces against the people of Western Sahara.


title: Case C-192/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — COBRA SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/5/EC — Mutual recognition of the conformity of radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment — Existence of harmonised standards — Need for the manufacturer to consult a notified body — Affixing of the identification number of a notified body)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/11

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — COBRA SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
      (Case C-192/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/5/EC - Mutual recognition of the conformity of radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment - Existence of harmonised standards - Need for the manufacturer to consult a notified body - Affixing of the identification number of a notified body))
      (2018/C 319/12)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: COBRA SpA

         Defendant: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a manufacturer of radio equipment makes use of the procedure laid down in the second paragraph of Annex III to that directive and uses the harmonised standards in order to define the test suites referred to in that paragraph, he is not required to consult a notified body as referred to in Article 11(1) of that directive and, consequently, is not required to ensure that the CE marking is accompanied by the identification number of that notified body.

                  2.

                  The second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Directive 1999/5, as amended by Regulation No 596/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a manufacturer of radio equipment who has made use of the procedure identified in Annex III to that directive, using the harmonised standards defining the essential radio test suites to be carried out, is not required to ensure that the CE marking is accompanied by the identification number of the notified body that he has voluntarily consulted — despite not being required to do so — in order to confirm the list of essential radio test suites set out in those harmonised standards.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


title: Case T-449/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Nexans France and Nexans 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 328/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission
      (Case T-449/14) (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 328/51)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Nexans France SAS (Courbevoie, France) and Nexans SA (Courbevoie) (represented by: G. Forwood, lawyer, M. Powell, A. Rogers and A. Oh, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and A. Biolan, and subsequently by C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

         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 Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case C-268/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski Sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — Issue of a European arrest warrant against AY (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(2), Article 3(2) and Article 4(3) — Grounds for the refusal to execute — Closure of a criminal investigation — Principle ne bis in idem — Requested person who had the status of a witness in previous proceedings concerning the same acts — Issue of several European arrest warrants against the same person)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/18

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski Sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — Issue of a European arrest warrant against AY
      (Case C-268/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(2), Article 3(2) and Article 4(3) - Grounds for the refusal to execute - Closure of a criminal investigation - Principle ne bis in idem - Requested person who had the status of a witness in previous proceedings concerning the same acts - Issue of several European arrest warrants against the same person))
      (2018/C 328/22)
      Language of the case: Croatian

         Referring court

      Županijski Sud u Zagrebu

         Party to the main proceedings

      AY

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 1(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as requiring the judicial authority of the executing Member State to adopt a decision on any European arrest warrant forwarded to it, even when, in that Member State, a ruling has already been made on a previous European arrest warrant concerning the same person and the same acts, but the second European arrest warrant has been issued only on account of the indictment, in the issuing Member State, of the requested person.

                  2.

                  Article 3(2) and Article 4(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, such as that of the Hungarian National Bureau of Investigation in question in the main proceedings, which terminated an investigation opened against an unknown person, during which the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant was interviewed as a witness only, without criminal proceedings having been brought against that person and where the decision was not taken in respect of that person, cannot be relied on for the purpose of refusing to execute that European arrest warrant pursuant to either of those provisions.

         (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case T-392/17: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — TE v Commission (Action for annulment — Opening of an external investigation by OLAF — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/49

      Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — TE v Commission
      (Case T-392/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Opening of an external investigation by OLAF - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 328/66)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: TE (represented by: J. Bartončík, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and Z. Malůšková, acting as agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision to open an external investigation, led by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), [confidential], (2) relating to the applicant as person concerned and regarding [confidential].

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  TE shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.

         (2)  Confidential data omitted.


title: Case C-481/18: Action brought on 23 July 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/29

      Action brought on 23 July 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic
      (Case C-481/18)
      (2018/C 328/38)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Szmytkowska and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Italian Republic

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2012/39/EU of 26 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/17/EC as regards certain technical requirements for the testing of human tissues and cells (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Directive 2012/39/EU;

                  —

                  order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Member States were required, under Article 2(1) of Directive 2012/39/EU, to adopt, by 17 June 2014, the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations under that directive into national law. Since the Italian Republic failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose that directive, or failed to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.

         (1)  OJ 2012 L 327, p. 24.


title: Case T-769/17: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — roelliroelli confectionery schweiz v EUIPO — Tanner (ALPRAUSCH) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Declaration of revocation of the opposing trade mark — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/49

      Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — roelliroelli confectionery schweiz v EUIPO — Tanner (ALPRAUSCH)
      (Case T-769/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Declaration of revocation of the opposing trade mark - No need to adjudicate))
      (2018/C 328/67)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH (St. Gallen, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Overhage and R. Böhm, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: André Tanner (Schindellegi, Switzerland)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 August 2017 (Case R 1596/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between André Tanner and roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                  roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear their own respective costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case T-485/18: Action brought on 9 August 2018 — Compañia de Tranvías de la Coruña v Commission

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/27

      Action brought on 9 August 2018 — Compañia de Tranvías de la Coruña v Commission
      (Case T-485/18)
      (2018/C 381/32)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Compañia de Tranvías de la Coruña, SA (A Coruña, Spain) (represented by: J. Monrabà Bagan, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul European Commission decision C(2018) 3780 final of 7 June 2018 concerning access to documents;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision fails to respect essential procedural requirements.

                              —

                              The decision does not provide sufficient reasoning to deny or give only partial access to documents in view of the inexistent link between the pending Court proceedings relied upon (Joined Cases C-350/17 Mobit (1) and C-351/17 Autolinee Toscane (2)) and the request for access to documents.

                              —

                              Sufficient reasoning is an essential procedural requirement and shall always be respected by the European Commission.

                              —

                              The lack of sufficient reasoning entails that the contested decision does not comply with Article 296, second paragraph, TFEU, and, thus, is to be considered void under Article 264, first paragraph, TFEU

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging, alternatively, the concurrence of an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents whose access has been denied by the contested decision.

                              —

                              The documents whose access has been requested are of public interest since they would help interpreting essential points on EU regulations on public passenger transport services by rail and by road which have been previously applied by the European Commission.

                              —

                              Thus, even were the Court to find a link between the abovementioned pending Joined Cases C-350/17 Mobit and C-351/17 Autolinee Toscane and the request for access to documents, Article 4(2), in fine, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (3) allows for access to documents when there is an overriding public interest.

                              —

                              The relevance of the documents, not only for the applicant, but for any authority or stakeholder willing to apply EU regulations on public passenger transport services by rail and by road, constitutes an overriding public interest and, thus, access thereto should be granted.

         (1)  Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017, Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. v Regione Toscana (OJ 2017 C 330, p. 4).

         (2)  Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Autolinee Toscane SpA v Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. (OJ 2017 C 330, p. 5).

         (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-288/17: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Sky v EUIPO — Parrot Drones (Parrot SKYCONTROLLER)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/31

      Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Sky v EUIPO — Parrot Drones (Parrot SKYCONTROLLER)
      (Case T-288/17) (1)

      (2018/C 381/39)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


title: Case C-150/18 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-212/16: 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-212/16: El Corte Inglés v EUIPO
      (Case C-150/18 P)
      (2018/C 392/02)
      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 C-524/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2018 — Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co.KG v Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/9

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2018 — Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co.KG v Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
      (Case C-524/18)
      (2018/C 392/13)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co.KG

         Defendant: Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is a reference to general, non-specific health-related benefits ‘accompanied’ within the meaning of Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) by specific health claims in accordance with one of the lists provided for in Article 13 or 14 of that regulation even if that reference is situated on the front and the authorised claims are situated on the back of an outer packaging and, in the perception of the public, although the claims are clearly related to the reference in terms of content, the reference does not contain a clear indication, marked with an asterisk for example, to the claims on the back?

                  2.

                  Does evidence within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also need to be provided in the case of reference being made to general, non-specific benefits within the meaning of Article 10(3) of that regulation?

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1047/2012 of 8 November 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 with regard to the list of nutrition claims Text with EEA relevance, OJ 2012 L 310, p. 36.


title: Case T-702/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Barosso Truta and Others v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Civil Service — Contractual staff — Pensions — Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of pension rights acquired previously under national schemes — Harm resulting from the allegedly insufficient information provided to the appellants by the AECC when communicating proposals concerning additional pensionable years concerning those appellants — Claim for compensation dismissed at first instance — Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations — Material harm)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/22

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Barosso Truta and Others v Court of Justice of the European Union
      (Case T-702/16 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Civil Service - Contractual staff - Pensions - Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of pension rights acquired previously under national schemes - Harm resulting from the allegedly insufficient information provided to the appellants by the AECC when communicating proposals concerning additional pensionable years concerning those appellants - Claim for compensation dismissed at first instance - Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations - Material harm))
      (2018/C 392/26)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellants: José Barosso Truta (Bofferdange, Luxembourg), Marc Forli (Lexy, France), Calogero Galante (Aix-sur-Cloie, Belgium), Bernard Gradel (Konacker, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and Á. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016, Barosso Truta and Others v Court of Justice of the European Union (F-126/15, EU:F:2016:159), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders the appellants to bear a quarter of their costs;

                  3.

                  Orders the Court of Justice of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the appellants.

         (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case T-534/18: Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/38

      Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek)
      (Case T-534/18)
      (2018/C 392/46)
      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

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Peek’ — Application for registration No 1 915 438

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 in Case R 115/2005-1

         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 in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the Markengesetz (German Law on Trade Marks; ‘MarkenG’);

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the MarkenG on the basis of a likelihood of confusion;

                  —

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


title: Case C-244/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2018 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Decision (EU) 2017/477 — Position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union within the Cooperation Council established under the Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Kazakhstan, of the other part, as regards the working arrangements of the Cooperation Council, the Cooperation Committee, specialised subcommittees or any other bodies — Article 218(9) TFEU — Decision establishing the positions to be adopted on behalf of the European Union in a body set up by an international agreement — Agreement some of whose provisions may be linked with the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Voting rule)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/9

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2018 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
      (Case C-244/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Decision (EU) 2017/477 - Position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union within the Cooperation Council established under the Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Kazakhstan, of the other part, as regards the working arrangements of the Cooperation Council, the Cooperation Committee, specialised subcommittees or any other bodies - Article 218(9) TFEU - Decision establishing the positions to be adopted on behalf of the European Union in a body set up by an international agreement - Agreement some of whose provisions may be linked with the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Voting rule))
      (2018/C 399/10)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Havas, L. Gussetti and P. Aalto, acting as Agents, subsequently by L. Havas and L. Gussetti, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and P. Mahnič Bruni, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Council Decision (EU) 2017/477 of 3 March 2017 on the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union within the Cooperation Council established under the Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Kazakhstan, of the other part as regards the working arrangements of the Cooperation Council, the Cooperation Committee, specialised subcommittees or any other bodies;

                  2.

                  Orders that the effects of Decision 2017/477 be maintained in force;

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case C-35/18 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2018 by Carrera Brands Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 November 2017 in Case T-419/16, Carrera Brands Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/2

      Appeal brought on 18 January 2018 by Carrera Brands Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 November 2017 in Case T-419/16, Carrera Brands Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      (Case C-35/18 P)
      (2018/C 427/02)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Carrera Brands Ltd (represented by: C. Markowsky, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other parties: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Autec AG
      By order of 14 June 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-604/18 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-786/14: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others v Council of the European Union and Others

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/28

      Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-786/14: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others v Council of the European Union and Others
      (Case C-604/18 P)
      (2018/C 427/36)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister, K. Chrysostomides, Δικηγόρος)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Euro Group, represented by the Council of the European Union, European Union, represented by the European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  quash the decision of the General Court;

                  —

                  grant the orders sought by the applicants in the proceedings before the General Court;

                  —

                  order the respondents to pay the costs of this appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The appellants consider that the General Court erred in law by:

                  (a)

                  finding that the Euro Group did not require Cyprus to take the measures causing them loss or that those measures were not required by action attributable to the EU.

                  (b)

                  considering that the ECB press release of 21 March 2013 did not cause harm to the appellants;

                  (c)

                  holding that by certain other acts the respondents did not require Cyprus to continue to implement the harmful measures and/or did not require the adoption of the harmful measures introduced by the amendments made to the harmful decrees on 30 July 2013;

                  (d)

                  considering that not all of the harmful measures were required by Council Decision 2013/236 (1);

                  (e)

                  finding that there was no serious breach of the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms; the principle of protection of legitimate expectations; and the principle of non-discrimination.

            The appellants argue that the harmful measures fail to satisfy the requirement that restrictions on the right to property must be provided by law and also the requirement of proportionality. They consider that the conduct of the respondents gave rise to a legitimate expectation that no bail-in measures would be taken imposing a ‘haircut’ on their assets. They consider that as depositors, shareholders or bondholders in the Bank of Cyprus and/or Laiki suffered discrimination, inter alia, vis-à-vis depositors, shareholders or bondholders respectively in banks in other Eurozone Member States who benefited from financial assistance similar to that granted to Cyprus.

         (1)  Council Decision of 25 April 2013 addressed to Cyprus on specific measures to restore financial stability and sustainable growth (OJ 2013, L 141, p. 32).


title: Case T-506/18: Action brought on 24 August 2018 — Poland v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/78

      Action brought on 24 August 2018 — Poland v Commission
      (Case T-506/18)
      (2018/C 427/105)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 3826 final 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), (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the amounts of EUR 1 421 755,79 and EUR 1 436 426,73 in expenditure incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (2) through the application of financial corrections on the basis of incorrect findings of fact and an incorrect interpretation of the law.

                              —

                              The Republic of Poland emphasises that the amounts excluded from European Union financing by virtue of the contested decision were spent in accordance with the provisions of EU legislation laying down the rules for implementing specific support for the tobacco sector, namely Regulation No 73/2009, (3) Regulation No 1120/2009 (4) and Regulation No 1122/2009. (5) The way in which that support was implemented by the Polish authorities was also in accordance with national legislation and the Programme communicated to the Commission of activities carried out in Poland in the context of the specific support provided for in Article 68 of Regulation No 73/2009.

                              —

                              With regard to the part of the plea which concerns on-the-spot checks at producer level, the Republic of Poland states that there was no obligation, either under EU law or under national law, for producers to deliver all the tobacco produced to the initial processors. The Polish system of on-the-spot checks fully enabled the effective verification of whether all the eligibility conditions for support had been satisfied.

                              —

                              With regard to the part of the plea which concerns on-the-spot checks at the point of delivery, the Republic of Poland states that those checks fully ensured the verification of all the quality requirements to be met by the raw tobacco qualifying for support, including, in particular, the requirements concerning humidity and sand and dirt content.

                              —

                              With regard to the Commission’s complaint concerning the lack of a specific system of reductions and exclusions, the Republic of Poland states that the Polish system of penalties in the field of specific support for the tobacco sector was entirely in line with Article 21(1) of Regulation No 73/2009. In particular, that system was very restrictive and prevented any risk of loss to the Fund.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 through the application of a flat-rate correction at a level that was flagrantly excessive in relation to the risk of potential financial damage to the European Union budget.
                  The Republic of Poland takes the view that the flat-rate correction at a level of 5 % applied by the Commission is too high and exceeds the potential maximum loss that could be incurred by the Fund.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.
                  In that regard, the Republic of Poland points to the contradictions arising from the pleadings submitted by the Commission in the course of the investigative proceedings, and also to the lack of justification provided by the Commission in respect of the complaint of infringement of some of the provisions of EU law relied on by that institution.

         (1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 (OJ 2018 L 152, p. 29).

         (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

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

         (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 1).

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


title: Case T-128/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Daimler v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the procedure initiated pursuant to Article 29 of Directive 2007/46/EC allowing a Member State to refuse registration of vehicles seriously jeopardising road safety or having a significant negative impact on the environment or on public health — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption — Aarhus Convention — Refusal to grant access to the file — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Daimler v Commission
      (Case T-128/14) (1)

      (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the procedure initiated pursuant to Article 29 of Directive 2007/46/EC allowing a Member State to refuse registration of vehicles seriously jeopardising road safety or having a significant negative impact on the environment or on public health - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption - Aarhus Convention - Refusal to grant access to the file - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)
      (2018/C 427/44)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, B. Schirmer and N. Wimmer, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, then by G. Wilms and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, and finally by H. Krämer and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents, assisted initially by R. Van der Hout, then by R. Van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and A. Jensen, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision ARES (2013) 3715941 of 13 December 2013 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to the procedure initiated by the French Republic pursuant to Article 29 of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls European Commission Decision ARES (2013) 3715941 of 13 December 2013 refusing to grant Daimler AG access to documents relating to the procedure initiated by the French Republic pursuant to Article 29 of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive);

                  2.

                  Orders the Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Daimler;

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case C-595/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-419/14: The Goldman Sachs Group v European Commission

text:
               10.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 445/6

      Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-419/14: The Goldman Sachs Group v European Commission
      (Case C-595/18 P)
      (2018/C 445/07)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (represented by: A. Mangiaracina, avvocatessa, J. Koponen, advokat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal;

                  —

                  annul, in whole or in part (e.g. from May 2007 or November 2007 onwards, where GS Group and its affiliates held only around 45 % and 26 % of Prysmian’s shares respectively), Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 (1) dated 2 April 2014 insofar as they concern the appellant; and/or

                  —

                  reduce the fine imposed on the appellant by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 dated 2 April 2014; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         First Plea: The General Court misapplied Article 101 TFEU and Article 23.2 of Regulation 1/2003 (2) by holding the appellant liable for an infringement committed by Prysmian from 29 July 2005 to 3 May 2007 (‘the pre-IPO period’).

         Second Plea: The appellant did not exercise decisive influence in the sense required by the case law between 3 May 2007 to 28 January 2009 (‘the post-IPO period’).

         Third Plea: Request that the Court of Justice affords the appellant the benefit of any reduction of the fine granted to Prysmian.

         (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).

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


title: Case T-604/18: Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Google and Alphabet/Commission

text:
               10.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 445/21

      Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Google and Alphabet/Commission
      (Case T-604/18)
      (2018/C 445/26)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Google LLC (Mountain View, California, United States), Alphabet, Inc. (Mountain View) (represented by: N. Levy, Solicitor, P. Stuart, Barrister, J. Schindler and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission’s decision of 18 July 2018 in case COMP/AT.40099 —Google Andrоid;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants in exercise of the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction; and

                  —

                  in any event, order the Commission to bear the applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision C(2018) 4761 final of 18 July 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (AT.40099 — Google Android).
      In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in its assessments of market definition and dominance.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicants submit that the contested decision errs in finding Android dominant.

                              —

                              The applicants further claim that the contested decision errs in finding Play dominant.

                              —

                              The applicants also put forward that the contested decision’s claim that Google is dominant in general search services provided to users does not fit its theory of abuse, which relates to search apps licensed to original equipment manufacturers.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding Google’s mobile application distribution agreement’s preinstallation conditions abusive.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicants submit that the contested decision fails to demonstrate that the challenged preinstallation conditions were likely to foreclose competition.

                              —

                              The applicants further claim that the contested decision wrongly ignores that the preinstallation conditions are objectively justified because they enable Google to provide the Android platform for free.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that the sole preinstallation condition in Google’s portfolio-based revenue-sharing agreements was abusive.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that it was abusive for Google to condition Play and Google Search app licenses on the anti-fragmentation agreement’s anti-fragmentation obligations.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicants submit that the contested decision errs in finding that the anti-fragmentation obligations are likely to restrict competition.

                              —

                              The applicants further claim that the contested decision fails to take into account that the anti-fragmentation obligations are objectively justified because they ensure compatibility.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringed the applicants’ rights of defence.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicants submit that the Commission improperly put its ‘as efficient competitor’ analysis to the applicants in letters of facts and refused them an oral hearing.

                              —

                              The applicants further claim that the Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of access to file.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in imposing a fine and in calculating that fine.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicants submit that the fine is unlawful because it fails to consider Google’s lack of intent or negligence.

                              —

                              The applicants further claim that the fine is unlawful because it does not respect the principle of proportionality.

                              —

                              In the alternative, the applicants also put forward that the contested decision errs in calculating the fine.


title: Case C-605/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 25 September 2018 — Adler Real Estate AG and Others

text:
               10.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 445/7

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 25 September 2018 — Adler Real Estate AG and Others
      (Case C-605/18)
      (2018/C 445/08)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Adler Real Estate AG, Petrus Advisers LLP, TZ

         Defendant authority: Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 3(1a), fourth subparagraph, (iii), of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, (1) as last amended by Directive 2013/50/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, to be interpreted as meaning that it is a requirement for the permissibility of the imposition of ‘more stringent requirements’ on the ‘holder of shares, or a natural person or legal entity’, that the ‘laws, regulations or administrative provisions’ providing for more stringent requirements for holdings publicity are ‘supervised’ by an authority designated by the Member State pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC (2) … concerning takeover bids and that such supervision encompasses compliance with the more stringent requirements regarding holdings publicity within the meaning of Directive 2004/109/EC?

                  2.

                  Does Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a national practice according to which a decision having the force of res judicata taken by the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC by means of which a natural person’s breach of national provisions adopted in implementation of Directive 2004/25/EC was established is also given binding effect in the context of criminal proceedings conducted against that same natural person owing to a breach of national standards connected with such proceedings in implementation of Directive 2004/109/EC (Transparency Directive), with the result that that natural person is prevented from challenging, in law and fact, the breach of law already established with the force of res judicata?

         (1)  OJ 2004 L 390, p. 38.

         (2)  Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids (OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12).


title: Case T-609/18: Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Fujifilm Recording Media v EUIPO — iTernity GmbH (d:ternity)

text:
               10.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 445/22

      Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Fujifilm Recording Media v EUIPO — iTernity GmbH (d:ternity)
      (Case T-609/18)
      (2018/C 445/27)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Fujifilm Recording Media GmbH (Kleve, Germany) (represented by: R. Härer, C. Schulze, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger und C. Gehweiler, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: iTernity GmbH (Freiburg, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘d:ternity’ — EU trade mark No 11 152 154

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2018 in Case R 2324/2017-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  in the alternative, declare that there is no need to adjudicate on the dispute in the main proceedings;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred before the Court and the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 18 and 64 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.