title: Case C-377/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament (Actions for annulment — Rules on languages — Selection procedure for contract staff — Call for expressions of interest — Drivers — Function group I — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the selection procedure to English, French and German — Language of communication — Regulation No 1 — Staff Regulations — Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Discrimination based on language — Justification — Interests of the service)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/2

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament
      (Case C-377/16) (1)

      (Actions for annulment - Rules on languages - Selection procedure for contract staff - Call for expressions of interest - Drivers - Function group I - Knowledge of languages - Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the selection procedure to English, French and German - Language of communication - Regulation No 1 - Staff Regulations - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Discrimination based on language - Justification - Interests of the service)
      (2019/C 187/02)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and M.A. Sampol Pucurull, Agents)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Nessaf, C. Burgos and M. Rantala, Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the Call for Expressions of Interest Contract Staff — Function Group I — Drivers (F/M) — EP/CAST/S/16/2016;

                  2.

                  Declares the database established pursuant to Call for Expressions of Interest Contract Staff — Function Group I — Drivers (F/M) — EP/CAST/S/16/2016 void;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs

         (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case C-127/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Directive 96/53/EC — International traffic — Vehicles complying with the limit values for weights and dimensions laid down in that directive — Use of such vehicles, which were registered or put into circulation in one Member State, on the territory of another Member State — Special permit regime — Articles 3 and 7 — 2003 Act of Accession — Transitional arrangements — Point 8.3 of Annex XII)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/7

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
      (Case C-127/17) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 96/53/EC - International traffic - Vehicles complying with the limit values for weights and dimensions laid down in that directive - Use of such vehicles, which were registered or put into circulation in one Member State, on the territory of another Member State - Special permit regime - Articles 3 and 7 - 2003 Act of Accession - Transitional arrangements - Point 8.3 of Annex XII)
      (2019/C 187/08)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Kamejsza-Kozłowska and J. Sawicka, acting as Agents, and by J. Waszkiewicz, expert)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by imposing on transport undertakings a requirement to be in possession of special permits in order to be able to circulate on certain public roads, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 3 and 7 of Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic, as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/719 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015, read in conjunction with points 3.1 and 3.4 of Annex I to Directive 96/53;

                  2.

                  Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


title: Case C-253/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 26 March 2019 — MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/28

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 26 March 2019 — MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA
      (Case C-253/19)
      (2019/C 206/33)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants at first instance and appellants on appeal: MH, NI

         Defendants at first instance and respondents on appeal: OJ, Novo Banco SA

         Question referred

      Under Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, do the courts of a Member State have jurisdiction to open main insolvency proceedings in respect of a citizen whose sole immovable asset is located in that State, while he, along with his family unit, is habitually resident in another Member State where he is in paid employment?

         (1)  Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2015 L 141, p. 192).


title: Joined Cases C-119/18 to C-121/18: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo — Spain) — Telefónica Móviles España SAU (C-119/18), Orange España SAU (C-120/18), Vodafone España SAU (C-121/18) v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 6(1),and part A of the annex — Authorisation of electronic communications networks and services — Telecommunications operators — Operating in an area greater than an Autonomous Community — Annual financial contribution — Participation in the financing of the Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/13

      Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo — Spain) — Telefónica Móviles España SAU (C-119/18), Orange España SAU (C-120/18), Vodafone España SAU (C-121/18) v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central
      (Joined Cases C-119/18 to C-121/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 6(1),and part A of the annex - Authorisation of electronic communications networks and services - Telecommunications operators - Operating in an area greater than an Autonomous Community - Annual financial contribution - Participation in the financing of the Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española)
      (2019/C 220/17)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Telefónica Móviles España SAU (C-119/18), Orange España SAU (C-120/18), Vodafone España SAU (C-121/18)

         Defendant: Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central

         Operative part of the order

      Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), must be interpreted as meaning that an annual financial contribution, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, imposed on telecommunications companies operating in Spain that operate in an area greater than that of an Autonomous Community, for the purpose of participating in the financing of public broadcasting, does not fall within the scope of that directive.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case C-305/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Verdi Ambiente e Società (VAS) — Aps Onlus, Movimento Legge Rifiuti Zero per l’Economia Circolare Aps v Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2008/98/EC — Disposal or recovery of waste — Establishment of an integrated waste management system guaranteeing national self-sufficiency — Construction of incineration facilities or increase in capacity of existing facilities — Classification of incineration facilities as ‘strategic infrastructure and installations of major national importance’ — Compliance with the ‘waste hierarchy’ principle — Directive 2001/42/EC — Need to carry out an ‘environmental assessment’)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/17

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Verdi Ambiente e Società (VAS) — Aps Onlus, Movimento Legge Rifiuti Zero per l’Economia Circolare Aps v Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri and Others
      (Case C-305/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2008/98/EC - Disposal or recovery of waste - Establishment of an integrated waste management system guaranteeing national self-sufficiency - Construction of incineration facilities or increase in capacity of existing facilities - Classification of incineration facilities as ‘strategic infrastructure and installations of major national importance’ - Compliance with the ‘waste hierarchy’ principle - Directive 2001/42/EC - Need to carry out an ‘environmental assessment’)
      (2019/C 230/20)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Verdi Ambiente e Società (VAS) — Aps Onlus, Movimento Legge Rifiuti Zero per l’Economia Circolare Aps

         Defendants: Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Regione Lazio, Regione Toscana, Regione Lombardia

         Interveners: Associazione Mamme per la Salute e l’Ambiente Onlus, Comitato Donne 29 Agosto

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The ‘waste hierarchy’ principle, as expressed in Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, read in the light of Article 13 thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which classifies waste incineration facilities as ‘strategic infrastructure and installations of major national importance’, as long as that legislation is compatible with the other provisions of that directive which lay down more specific obligations.

                  2.

                  Article 2(a), Article 3(1), and Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, comprising basic legislation and implementing legislation, which revises upwards the capacity of existing waste incineration facilities and which provides for the construction of new installations of that kind, comes under the notion of ‘plans and programmes’, within the meaning of that directive, where it is likely to have significant environmental effects and must, consequently, be subject to a prior environmental assessment.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case T-690/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Enrico Colombo and Corinti Giacomo v Commission (Public works contracts — Tendering procedure — JRC in Ispra — Works for the construction and maintenance of water pipes and district heating/cooling substations — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Action for annulment — Action for damages — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Enrico Colombo and Corinti Giacomo v Commission
      (Case T-690/16) (1)

      (Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - JRC in Ispra - Works for the construction and maintenance of water pipes and district heating/cooling substations - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Action for annulment - Action for damages - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2019/C 230/32)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicants: Enrico Colombo (Sesto Calende, Italy) and Corinti Giacomo (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: R. Colombo and G. Turri, lawyers)

         Defendant: Commission (represented by: initially, S. Delaude, L. Di Paolo and P. Rosa Plaza, then S. Delaude and L. Di Paolo and, lastly, S. Delaude and A. Spina, Agents)

         Re:

      First, application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU and seeking, in essence, annulment of the Commission’s decisions rejecting the tender submitted by the applicants in connection with the tendering procedure JRC/IPR/2016/C4/0002/OC, concerning a Framework agreement for the construction and maintenance of water pipes and heating/cooling substations at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra (Italy) and awarding that contract to another tenderer and, secondly, application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of those decisions.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Enrico Colombo SpA and Corinti Giacomo to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-315/19: Action brought on 22 May 2019 — BT v European Commission

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/35

      Action brought on 22 May 2019 — BT v European Commission
      (Case T-315/19)
      (2019/C 246/37)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should;

                  —

                  annul the Commission decision of 20 July 2018 refusing the grant of a survivor’s pension to the applicant;

                  —

                  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 unlawfulness of the requirement as to the duration of the marriage, fixed at five years by Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that, first, it discriminates arbitrarily between officials in service and retired officials. Secondly, the applicant takes the view that, although the minimum duration requirement of one year is appropriate in combating fraudulent marriages, a minimum duration of five years is itself arbitrary, inadequate and unfair. Thirdly, such a condition can unfairly exclude from the benefit of a survivor’s pension the spouse of a deceased official who is nevertheless bound by plans for their life together.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(d) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.


title: Case T-272/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2019 — EBM Technologies v EUIPO (MobiPACS) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MobiPACS — Absolute ground for refusal — Slogan — Level of attention of the relevant public — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2019 — EBM Technologies v EUIPO (MobiPACS)
      (Case T-272/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MobiPACS - Absolute ground for refusal - Slogan - Level of attention of the relevant public - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 255/53)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: EBM Technologies, Inc. (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: J. Liesegang, M. Jost and N. Lang, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2018 (Case R 2145/2017-2) relating to an application for registration of the word sign MobiPACS as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2018 (Case R 2145/2017-2);

                  2.

                     Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.


title: Case T-346/19: Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Ceravolo v Parliament

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/53

      Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Ceravolo v Parliament
      (Case T-346/19)
      (2019/C 263/60)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Domenico Ceravolo (Noventa Padovana, Italy) (represented by: M. Paniz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the communiqué of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance implementing Resolution No 14/2018 of 12 July 2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, having established that it is unlawful on the grounds of failure to observe the principles of legitimate expectations, the protection of acquired rights, reasonableness, proportionality and legality, and infringement of Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol thereto, as well as Articles 27 and 28 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and Articles 75 and 76 of the Implementing Measures for that statute, and, in any event, annul the redetermination and recalculation of the life annuity disbursed by the European Parliament;

                  —

                  accordingly, declare that the applicant is entitled to the maintenance of the life annuity disbursed by the European Parliament in so far as it was accrued and is being accrued on the basis of the legislation in force prior to Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber [of Deputies] and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and order the European Parliament to pay him all the sums unduly withheld, adjusted for inflation, together with statutory interest from the date of withholding until the date of payment, and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and immediately to restore in full the original amount of the life annuity, and to pay compensation for all damages if and to the extent that damages are payable; and

                  —

                  in any event, order the Parliament to pay all costs, lawyers’ fees, plus VAT, taxes, duties and flat-rate charges.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-345/19, Santini v Parliament.


title: Case C-608/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Holmen AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corporation tax — Group of companies — Freedom of establishment — Deduction of losses of a non-resident subsidiary — Concept of ‘final losses’ — Application to a sub-subsidiary — Legislation of the State of establishment of the parent company requiring direct ownership of the subsidiary — Legislation of the State of establishment of the subsidiary restricting the set-off of losses and prohibiting them from being set off in the year of liquidation)

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/6

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Holmen AB
      (Case C-608/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Corporation tax - Group of companies - Freedom of establishment - Deduction of losses of a non-resident subsidiary - Concept of ‘final losses’ - Application to a sub-subsidiary - Legislation of the State of establishment of the parent company requiring direct ownership of the subsidiary - Legislation of the State of establishment of the subsidiary restricting the set-off of losses and prohibiting them from being set off in the year of liquidation)
      (2019/C 270/06)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Skatteverket

         Defendant: Holmen AB

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The concept of final losses of a non-resident subsidiary, within the meaning of paragraph 55 of the judgment of 13 December 2005, Marks & Spencer (C-446/03, EU:C:2005:763), does not apply to a sub-subsidiary unless all the intermediate companies between the parent company applying for group relief and the sub-subsidiary sustaining losses that could be regarded as final are established in the same Member State;

                  2.

                  For the purposes of the assessment of the finality of a non-resident subsidiary’s losses, within the meaning of paragraph 55 of the judgment of 13 December 2005, Marks & Spencer (C-446/03, EU:C:2005:763), the fact that the subsidiary’s Member State of establishment does not allow the losses of one company to be transferred to another company in the year of liquidation is not decisive, unless the parent company demonstrates that it is impossible for it to deduct those losses by ensuring, in particular by means of a sale, that they are taken into account by a third party for future periods;

                  3.

                  If the fact referred to in paragraph 2 of the operative part of the present judgment becomes relevant, the extent to which the legislation of the State of establishment of the subsidiary sustaining the losses that could be regarded as final results in it not being possible to set off part of them against the current profits of the loss-making subsidiary or against those profits of another company in the same group is irrelevant.

         (1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.


title: Case C-660/17 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2019 — RF v Commission (Appeal — Action for annulment — Application submitted by fax — Original of the application lodged out of time with the Registry of the General Court — Delay in the delivery of mail — Definition of ‘force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances’)

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/7

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2019 — RF v Commission
      (Case C-660/17 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Action for annulment - Application submitted by fax - Original of the application lodged out of time with the Registry of the General Court - Delay in the delivery of mail - Definition of ‘force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances’)
      (2019/C 270/07)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

         Appellant: RF (represented by: K. Komar-Komarowski, radca prawny)

         Other party: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski, G. Meessen and I. Rogalski, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Rejects the request for admission of new evidence;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  3.

                  Orders RF to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.


title: Case C-1/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — ‘Oribalt Rīga’ SIA, formerly ‘Oriola Rīga’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 30(2)(b) and (c) — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 152(1)(a) and (b) — Determination of the customs value of the goods — Definition of ‘similar goods’ — Medicinal products — Account taken of any factor that may have an impact on the economic value of the medicinal product concerned — Time-limit of 90 days in which the imported goods must be sold in the European Union — Mandatory time-limit — No account taken of trade discounts)

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/8

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — ‘Oribalt Rīga’ SIA, formerly ‘Oriola Rīga’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
      (Case C-1/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 30(2)(b) and (c) - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 152(1)(a) and (b) - Determination of the customs value of the goods - Definition of ‘similar goods’ - Medicinal products - Account taken of any factor that may have an impact on the economic value of the medicinal product concerned - Time-limit of 90 days in which the imported goods must be sold in the European Union - Mandatory time-limit - No account taken of trade discounts)
      (2019/C 270/09)
      Language of the case: Latvian

         Referring court

      Augstākā tiesa

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant:‘Oribalt Rīga’ SIA, formerly ‘Oriola Rīga’ SIA

         Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 30(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that when the customs value of goods, such as the medicinal product at issue in the main proceedings, is calculated by applying the deductive method laid down in that provision, the competent national customs authority must, in order to identify ‘similar goods’, take into consideration any relevant factor, such as the respective compositions of those goods, their substitutability in the light of their effects and their commercial interchangeability, thus conducting a factual assessment which takes into account any factor that may have an impact on the real economic value of those goods, including the market position of the imported goods and of their manufacturer.

                  2.

                  Article 152(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the unit price of imported goods using the method laid down in Article 30(2)(c) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, the time-limit of 90 days within which the imported goods must be sold in the European Union, referred to in Article 152(1)(b) of Regulation No 2454/93, is a mandatory time-limit.

                  3.

                  Article 30(2)(c) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, must be interpreted as meaning that reductions in the sales price of the imported goods cannot be taken into account in determining the customs value of those goods pursuant to that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case C-41/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania — Italy) — Meca Srl v Comune di Napoli (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/12/EU — Article 57(4)(c) and (g) — Award of public service contracts — Optional grounds for exclusion from participation in a public procurement procedure — Grave professional misconduct calling into question the integrity of an economic operator — Termination of an earlier contract on account of failures in its execution — Action before the courts preventing the contracting authority from assessing the breach of contract until the end of the judicial proceedings)

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/9

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania — Italy) — Meca Srl v Comune di Napoli
      (Case C-41/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/12/EU - Article 57(4)(c) and (g) - Award of public service contracts - Optional grounds for exclusion from participation in a public procurement procedure - Grave professional misconduct calling into question the integrity of an economic operator - Termination of an earlier contract on account of failures in its execution - Action before the courts preventing the contracting authority from assessing the breach of contract until the end of the judicial proceedings)
      (2019/C 270/10)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Meca Srl

         Defendant: Comune di Napoli

         Intervener: Sirio Srl

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 57(4)(c) and (g) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which an action before the courts against a decision to terminate a public contract, taken by a contracting authority on account of significant deficiencies arising in the execution of that contract, prevents the contracting authority which issues a new call for tenders from conducting any assessment, at the stage of the selection of tenderers, of the reliability of the operator concerned by that termination.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Case C-72/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Pamplona — Spain) — Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui v Departamento de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4(1) — Principle of non-discrimination — Public sector education — National provision granting particular additional remuneration only to teachers employed for an indefinite duration as established public officials — Exclusion of teachers employed under a fixed-term contract governed by public law — Concept of ‘objective grounds’ - Characteristics inherent in the status of established public official)

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/10

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Pamplona — Spain) — Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui v Departamento de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra
      (Case C-72/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4(1) - Principle of non-discrimination - Public sector education - National provision granting particular additional remuneration only to teachers employed for an indefinite duration as established public officials - Exclusion of teachers employed under a fixed-term contract governed by public law - Concept of ‘objective grounds’ - Characteristics inherent in the status of established public official)
      (2019/C 270/11)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Pamplona

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui

         Defendant: Departamento de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra

         Operative part of the judgment

      Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts entitlement to particular additional remuneration to teachers employed for an indefinite duration as established public officials, to the exclusion of, in particular, teachers employed under fixed-term contracts governed by public law, if the completion of a certain period of service is the only condition for grant of that additional remuneration.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case C-100/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Línea Directa Aseguradora, SA v Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 3, first paragraph — Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ — Damage to property as a result of a fire in a vehicle parked in the private garage of the property — Compulsory insurance cover)

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/11

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Línea Directa Aseguradora, SA v Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros
      (Case C-100/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3, first paragraph - Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ - Damage to property as a result of a fire in a vehicle parked in the private garage of the property - Compulsory insurance cover)
      (2019/C 270/12)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Supremo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Línea Directa Aseguradora, SA

         Defendant: Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as meaning that a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a vehicle parked in a private garage of a building, used in accordance with its function as a means of transport, has caught fire, giving rise to a fire which originated in the electrical circuit of that vehicle and caused damage to that building, even though that vehicle has not been moved for more than 24 hours before the fire occurred, falls within the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ referred to in that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case C-291/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Grup Servicii Petroliere SA v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 148(a) and (c) — Exemptions related to international transport — Supply of offshore jackup drilling rigs — Concept of ‘vessels used for navigation on the high seas’ — Scope)

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/12

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Grup Servicii Petroliere SA v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili
      (Case C-291/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 148(a) and (c) - Exemptions related to international transport - Supply of offshore jackup drilling rigs - Concept of ‘vessels used for navigation on the high seas’ - Scope)
      (2019/C 270/13)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel București

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Grup Servicii Petroliere SA

         Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 148(a) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘vessels used for navigation on the high seas’ contained in that provision does not apply to the supply of floating structures, such as the offshore jackup drilling rigs of the type at issue in the main proceedings, which are used predominantly in a stationary position to exploit hydrocarbon deposits at sea.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: Case C-404/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen — Belgium) –Tine Vandenbon, Jamina Hakelbracht, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen v WTG Retail BVBA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment of men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee)

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/12

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen — Belgium) –Tine Vandenbon, Jamina Hakelbracht, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen v WTG Retail BVBA
      (Case C-404/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women - Access to employment and working conditions - Article 24 - Protection against retaliatory measures - Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy - Employee intervening in favour of that candidate - Dismissal of that employee)
      (2019/C 270/14)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Tine Vandenbon, Jamina Hakelbracht, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen

         Defendant: WTG Retail BVBA

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 24 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 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in a situation where a person who believes to be discriminated against on grounds of sex has lodged a complaint, an employee who has supported that person in that context is protected from retaliatory measures taken by the employer solely if that employee has intervened as a witness in the context of the investigation of that complaint and that that employee’s witness statement satisfies formal requirements laid down by that legislation.

         (1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.


title: Case C-313/19 P: Appeal brought on 15 April 2019 by Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 February 2019 in Case T-125/18, Associazione GranoSalus v Commission

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/13

      Appeal brought on 15 April 2019 by Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 February 2019 in Case T-125/18, Associazione GranoSalus v Commission
      (Case C-313/19 P)
      (2019/C 270/15)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) (represented by: G. Dalfino, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  1.

                  The appeal against the order of the General Court is based on the infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

                  2.

                  The appellant, first of all, claims infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in so far as the General Court disregarded the fact that Associazione GranoSalus has standing to bring an action by virtue of the fact that its members have individual standing, since the contested Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 ‘is of direct and individual concern to them’ as a ‘regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures’.
                  In that regard, the association claims that the General Court erred in applying the provision in question, in so far as it considered that the condition of individual concern was not met because ‘some of the applicant’s members are allegedly affected by the contested act in their general capacity as consumers and citizens of the EU’ (paragraph 57 of the order).
                  That classification of the members of the applicant GranoSalus is however incorrect in the light of the statute of the association which makes its members, and through them, the association, holders and promoters of an interest relating to the protection of consumers and of agricultural producers via the implementation, in particular, of actions ‘seeking to combat, especially at EU level, any increase in the thresholds of mycotoxins and other contaminants in order to protect the health of consumers and, in particular, children’.
                  Since the condition of individual concern is satisfied and that condition is cumulative with respect to that of direct concern, the Court was wrong to rule from that point of view without taking account of it.

                  3.

                  The association also claims that the General Court was wrong, in its order, to consider that the condition of direct concern required for admissibility, in accordance with the last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU was not satisfied on account of the alleged existence of national measures implementing the contested Regulation (EU) 2017/2325, giving the reason for its decision in that regard as ‘renewal of marketing authorisations of phytopharmaceutical products containing the active substance “glyphosate”’, such acts being regarded as constituting ‘implementing measures of the contested act, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph, last sentence, of Article 263 TFEU’ (paragraphs 84 and 85 of the contested order).
                  The incorrect nature of that assessment is illustrated by the fact, demonstrated by documentary evidence, that the Member State in which the association, and its members, has its headquarters (Italy) received Regulation (EU) 2017/2325 via a communication from the Ministry of Health of 19 December 2017, which merely gave rise to the automatic renewal of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ for a period no longer than five years, while at the same time extending the authorisations relating to phytosanitary products containing glyphosate until 15 December 2022, without any discretionary assessment, even concerning the technical requirements laid down in Annexes I and II to Regulation (EU) 2017/2325.
                  The association claims in that regard that, even if the ministerial communication of 19 December 2017 were to be considered to be an implementing measure, the General Court did not take into account the fact that that communication could not be the subject of an action before the national courts because such an action is precluded under Italian law and the relevant case-law (Consiglio di Stato (Council of State), judgment No 6243 of 9 November 2005).

                  4.

                  The association then claims that the order infringes the last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263, in so far as the General Court did not take the subject matter of the dispute, as defined in the application, into consideration. The association notes in that regard that the General Court did not taken into consideration the fact that the direct effects of the contested regulation on the association, and through it on its members, arise from the potentially carcinogenic nature of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ (see the study of the International Agency for Research on Cancer published on 20 March 2015, disregarded in the contested Regulation (EU) 2017/2324), approval of which falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States because the national authorisation of a plant protection product does not involve any assessment concerning the active substance ‘glyphosate’ which was already approved previously by the European Union, which consequently precludes the Italian State from being entitled to authorise or refuse the placing on the market of plant protection products by reference to the active substance ‘glyphosate’. In the present case, the General Court examined the conditions laid down in the last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 without taking into account the arguments put forward in the dispute, that is to say that glysophate residues are present in groundwater, food (pasta) and soil, with the consequent harm that the placing on the market of that substance causes to the territory, citizens of Member States and the interests of the association, and through it, of its members.
                  The General Court should therefore have examined the concern within the meaning of the abovementioned Article 263 with regard to that the circumstance and the provisions of the association, as well as with regard to the standing of its members, which it did not do in its order.

                  5.

                  On the basis of the foregoing, the association disputes the interpretation of the last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263, given by the court of first instance, which deprives that provision of any effect and is contrary to the intention of the European legislature. In that regard, the applicant refers to the findings made by Advocates General in various proceedings (see, inter alia, the Opinion in case C-456/13 P, EU:C:2014:2283 and in joined cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P), in accordance with which such a restrictive interpretation would deprive Article 263 of meaning and concrete effect.
                  In the light of the foregoing, the association argues that the interpretation of last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263, given by the General Court in the contested order is manifestly contrary to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing …’) and Articles 6 (Right to a fair trial) and 13 (Right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, thereby hindering the possibility of bringing an action before the General Court on account of direct concern in such a scenario, and causing unjustified harm to the system of protection of rights enshrined in EU law.

         Form of order sought

      Associazione GranoSalus claims that the Court should annul the order of the General Court of 15 February 2019 in Case T-125/18, by which it declared the action inadmissible and that the members of the association did not have standing to bring proceedings by reason, first, of the alleged absence of individual effects of the contested regulation on the latter and, second, the existence of national implementing measures also excluding direct concern — and accordingly declare admissible the application seeking annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 and the requests for measures formulated therein, including measures of inquiry, and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal.


title: Case C-336/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 18 April 2019 — Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others, Unie Moskeeën Antwerpen VZW and Islamitisch Offerfeest Antwerpen VZW, JG and KH, Executief van de Moslims van België and Others, Coördinatie Comité van Joodse Organisaties van België. Section belge du Congrès juif mondial et Congrès juif européen VZW and Others, intervening parties: LI, Vlaamse regering, Waalse regering, Kosher Poultry BVBA and Others and Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others, Global Action in the Interest of Animals VZW (GAIA)

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/15

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 18 April 2019 — Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others, Unie Moskeeën Antwerpen VZW and Islamitisch Offerfeest Antwerpen VZW, JG and KH, Executief van de Moslims van België and Others, Coördinatie Comité van Joodse Organisaties van België. Section belge du Congrès juif mondial et Congrès juif européen VZW and Others, intervening parties: LI, Vlaamse regering, Waalse regering, Kosher Poultry BVBA and Others and Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others, Global Action in the Interest of Animals VZW (GAIA)
      (Case C-336/19)
      (2019/C 270/16)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Grondwettelijk Hof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others, Unie Moskeeën Antwerpen VZW, Islamitisch Offerfeest Antwerpen VZW, JG, KH, Executief van de Moslims van België and Others, Coördinatie Comité van Joodse Organisaties van België. Section belge du Congrès juif mondial et Congrès juif européen VZW and Others

         Intervening parties: LI, Vlaamse regering, Waalse regering, Kosher Poultry BVBA and Others, Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others, Global Action in the Interest of Animals VZW (GAIA)

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 26(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 (1) of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing be interpreted as meaning that Member States are permitted, by way of derogation from the provision contained in Article 4(4) of that regulation and with a view to promoting animal welfare, to adopt rules such as those contained in the decreet van het Vlaamse Gewest van 7 juli 2017‘houdende wijziging van de wet van 14 augustus 1986 betreffende de bescherming en het welzijn der dieren, wat de toegelaten methodes voor het slachten van dieren betreft’ (Decree of the Flemish Region of 7 July 2017‘amending the Law of 14 August 1986 on the protection and welfare of animals, regarding permitted methods of slaughtering animals’), rules which provide, on the one hand, for a prohibition of the slaughter of animals without stunning that also applies to the slaughter carried out in the context of a religious rite and, on the other hand, for an alternative stunning procedure for the slaughter carried out in the context of a religious rite, based on reversible stunning and on condition that the stunning should not result in the death of the animal?

                  2.

                  If the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is to be answered in the affirmative, does point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 26(2) of Regulation No 1099/2009, in the interpretation referred to in the first question, infringe Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

                  3.

                  If the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is to be answered in the affirmative, does point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 26(2) read in conjunction with Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1099/2009, in the interpretation referred to in the first question, infringe Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since, in the case of the killing of animals by particular methods prescribed by religious rites, provision is only made for a conditional exception to the obligation to stun the animal (Article 4(4), read in conjunction with Article 26(2)), whereas in the case of the killing of animals during hunting and fishing and during sporting and cultural events, for the reasons stated in the recitals of the regulation, the relevant provisions stipulate that those activities do not fall within the scope of the regulation, or are not subject to the obligation to stun the animal when it is killed (Article 1(1), second subparagraph, and Article 1(3))?

         (1)  OJ 2009 L 303, p. 1.


title: Case C-360/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Crown Van Gelder B.V. v Autoriteit Consument en Markt

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/16

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Crown Van Gelder B.V. v Autoriteit Consument en Markt
      (Case C-360/19)
      (2019/C 270/17)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Crown Van Gelder B.V.

         Respondent: Autoriteit Consument en Markt

         Question referred

      Must Article 37(11) of 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 be interpreted as meaning that that provision also makes the right of complaint with regard to the operator of the national grid (transmission system operator) available to a party if that party has no connection to the grid of that national grid operator (transmission system operator) but has a connection only to a regional grid (distribution system) to which the transmission of electricity is interrupted as a result of a power cut on the national grid (transmission system) that feeds the regional grid (distribution system)?

         (1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.


title: Case C-372/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ondernemingsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2019 — Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v BVBA Weareone.World, NV Wecandance

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/17

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ondernemingsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2019 — Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v BVBA Weareone.World, NV Wecandance
      (Case C-372/19)
      (2019/C 270/19)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Ondernemingsrechtbank Antwerpen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM)

         Defendants: BVBA Weareone.World, NV Wecandance

         Questions referred

      Must Article 102 TFEU, whether or not read in conjunction with Article 16 of Directive 2014/26/EU (1) on collective management of copyright and related rights and the multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, be interpreted as meaning that there is abuse of a dominant position if a copyright management company which has a de facto monopoly in a Member State, applies a remuneration model to organisers of musical events for the right to communicate musical works to the public, based among other things on turnover,

                  1.

                  which uses a flat-rate tariff in tranches, instead of a tariff that takes into account the precise share (making use of advanced technical tools) of the music repertoire protected by the management company played during the event?

                  2.

                  which makes licence fees dependent on external elements such as, inter alia, the admission price, the price of refreshments, the artistic budget for the performers and the budget for other elements, such as decor?

         (1)  OJ 2014 L 84, p. 72.


title: Case C-384/19: Action brought on 16 May 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/18

      Action brought on 16 May 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
      (Case C-384/19)
      (2019/C 270/20)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

         Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) and (5) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2007/60/EC (1) as regards river basin districts ES120 Gran Canaria, ES122 Fuerteventura, ES123 Lanzarote, ES124 Tenerife, ES125 La Palma, ES126 La Gomera and ES127 El Hierro;

                  —

                  declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) and (2) of Directive 2007/60/EC as regards river basin districts ES120 Gran Canaria, ES122 Fuerteventura and ES125 La Palma;

                  —

                  order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      It is apparent the information provided by the Spanish authorities that Spain has not established, completed and published, by the 22 December 2015 deadline laid down in the Directive, flood risk management plans in respect of the river basin districts ES120 Gran Canaria, ES122 Fuerteventura, ES123 Lanzarote, ES124 Tenerife, ES125 La Palma, ES126 La Gomera and ES127 El Hierro. In addition, the Commission has not received a copy of those plans, as required by Article 15(1) of the Directive.
      Furthermore, in three river basin districts — ES120 Gran Canaria, ES122 Fuerteventura and ES125 La Palma — the public information and consultation phase has not yet taken place or has not in any event been completed. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) and (2) of Directive 2007/60/EC as regards those three river basin districts.

         (1)  Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (OJ 2007 L 288, p.27)


title: Case C-314/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 16 April 2019 — R.C.C. v M.O.L.

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 16 April 2019 — R.C.C. v M.O.L.
      (Case C-314/19)
      (2019/C 280/26)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: R.C.C.

         Respondent: M.O.L.

         Question referred

      Does Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, (1) and therefore the content of the directive, apply to a case in which a Notary, a public official who, in turn, is the private employer of the staff working for him, that relationship as employer being governed by general employment law and by the sectoral collective agreement, who replaces the previous departing Notary, taking over his Protocol, and who continues to provide that service at the same workplace, with the same material facilities, and who takes on the staff who worked for the previous Notary who ran that practice?

         (1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.


title: Case T-373/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — Ja zum Nürburgring v Commission (State aid — Individual aid in favour of the Nürburgring complex for the construction of a leisure park, hotels and restaurants as well as for the organisation of motor races — Decision finding the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Decision finding that the reimbursement of the aid found to be incompatible does not concern the new owner of the Nürburgring complex — Action for annulment — No substantial effect on competitive position — Association — Status of negotiator — Inadmissibility — Decision finding no State aid after the preliminary examination stage — Action for annulment — Interested party — Legal interest in bringing an action — Admissibility — Breach of procedural rights of interested parties — No difficulties that would have required the initiation of a formal investigation procedure — Complaint — Sale of the assets of the beneficiaries of the State aid found to be incompatible — Open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional tender process — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               26.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — Ja zum Nürburgring v Commission
      (Case T-373/15) (1)

      (State aid - Individual aid in favour of the Nürburgring complex for the construction of a leisure park, hotels and restaurants as well as for the organisation of motor races - Decision finding the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Decision finding that the reimbursement of the aid found to be incompatible does not concern the new owner of the Nürburgring complex - Action for annulment - No substantial effect on competitive position - Association - Status of negotiator - Inadmissibility - Decision finding no State aid after the preliminary examination stage - Action for annulment - Interested party - Legal interest in bringing an action - Admissibility - Breach of procedural rights of interested parties - No difficulties that would have required the initiation of a formal investigation procedure - Complaint - Sale of the assets of the beneficiaries of the State aid found to be incompatible - Open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional tender process - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration)
      (2019/C 288/54)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Ja zum Nürburgring eV (Nürburg, Germany) (represented initially by D. Frey, M. Rudolph and S. Eggerath, and subsequently by D. Frey and M. Rudolph, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by L. Flynn, T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, Agents)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/151 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for Nürburgring (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Orders that the application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate on the action be dismissed;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  3.

                     Orders Ja zum Nürburgring eV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case T-475/19: Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Bunzl and Others v Commission

text:
               16.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/21

      Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Bunzl and Others v Commission
      (Case T-475/19)
      (2019/C 312/19)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Bunzl plc (London, United Kingdom), Bunzl American Holdings (No.2) Ltd (London), Bunzl Overseas Holdings (No.2) Ltd (London) (represented by: J. Lesar, Solicitor, and K. Beal, QC)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Decision C(2019) 2526 final of 2 April 2019 on the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly applied Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in its selection of the reference framework for the analysis of the tax regime. The Commission should have treated the reference framework as the UK’s corporation tax regime, not simply the controlled foreign companies (CFC) regime itself.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment by adopting a flawed approach to the analysis of the CFC regime. The Commission at recitals (124) to (126) of the contested decision wrongly treated the provisions of Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the UK’s Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 as a form of derogation from a general charge to tax found in Chapter 5 thereof.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU when finding at recitals (127) to (151) of the contested decision that the selectivity criterion was fulfilled in that undertakings in factually and legally comparable positions were treated differently.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ‘full’ exemption under section 371IB of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the 75 % exemption under section 371ID of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ‘matched interest’ exception under section 371IE of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the imposition of a tax burden on CFCs meeting the exemptions contained in Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the UK’s Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 as a class would breach the applicants’ freedom of establishment contrary to Article 49 TFEU.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging that there was a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in relation to the 75 % exemption and fixed ratio issue.

                  9.

                  Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision fails to comply with the general EU law principle of non-discrimination or equality.

                  10.

                  Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission also erred in law in applying by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164, (1) which was not applicable ratione temporis.

                  11.

                  Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU by finding at recital (176) of the contested decision that a class of beneficiaries exists (including the applicants) and that the applicants had obtained any aid which needed to be recovered under Article 2(1) of the contested decision.

         (1)  Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market (OJ 2016 L 193, p. 1).


title: Case T-565/19: Action brought on 14 August 2019 – Oltchim v Commission

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/62

      Action brought on 14 August 2019 – Oltchim v Commission
      (Case T-565/19)
      (2019/C 383/71)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Oltchim SA (Râmnicu Vâlcea, Romania) (represented by: C. Arhold, L.-A. Bondoc and S. Petrisor, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Articles 1 and Article 3 to 7 of the Commission decision of 17 December 2018 in State aid Case SA.36086 (2016/C)(ex 2016/NN), implemented by Romania for Oltchim SA; (1)

                  —

                  award the application the costs of the present action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, with regard to the non-enforcement of debts by the Romanian Authority for State Assets Management, alleging manifest error of assessment by deciding that that measure provided an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, with regard to the aforesaid measure of non-enforcement of debts, alleging that the defendant failed, in violation of Article 296(2) TFUE, to provide sufficient reasoning with respect to the State aid classification of that measure.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, with regard to the alleged grant of aid by means of the continued supply of electricity to the applicant and further accumulation of debt by a third party after the failed privatisation of the applicant, alleging manifest error of assessment by deciding that that measure provided an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, with regard to the aforesaid measure of continued supply of electricity and accumulation of debt by a third party, alleging infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, with regard to the partial debt cancellation envisaged by the reorganisation plan approved by the applicant’s creditors, alleging a manifest error of assessment by deciding that the debt cancellation was a transfer of State resources, to the extent that a third party private undertaking was involved.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that, in any case, the aforesaid debt cancellation was not imputable to the State as far as the public companies involved were concerned.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the aforesaid debt cancellation passed the private creditor test, since the most important private creditors had voted for the reorganisation plan (pari passu), the reorganisation plan was economically more favourable for the public creditors than a liquidation scenario, and under the revised reorganisation plan the company was actually sold in asset bundles – a scenario which the Commission had praised as the best option in its decision.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging, with regard to the partial debt cancellation measure, that the defendant infringed Article 296(2) TFUE.

                  9.

                  Ninth plea in law, alleging, with regard to the partial debt cancellation measure, that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, as well as the Procedural Regulation, (2) by ordering the recovery of the total amount of the debt cancellation, albeit that, even under the defendant’s own (wrong) calculations of its hypothetical best case scenario, it was clear that the public creditors could not achieve much more than they actually achieved under the revised reorganisation plan.

         (1)  OJ 2019 L 181, p. 13.

         (2)  The version of this instrument cited in the application is Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1)


title: Case T-386/14 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — FIH Holding and FIH v Commission (State aid — Banking sector — Aid granted to FIH in the form of a transfer of its impaired assets to a new subsidiary and the subsequent purchase thereof by the body responsible for guaranteeing financial stability — State aid for banks during the crisis — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Admissibility — Calculation of the amount of the aid — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — FIH Holding and FIH v Commission
      (Case T-386/14 RENV) (1)

      (State aid - Banking sector - Aid granted to FIH in the form of a transfer of its impaired assets to a new subsidiary and the subsequent purchase thereof by the body responsible for guaranteeing financial stability - State aid for banks during the crisis - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Admissibility - Calculation of the amount of the aid - Manifest error of assessment)
      (2019/C 399/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: FIH Holding A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark) and FIH A/S, previously FIH Erhvervsbank A/S (Copenhagen) (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, A. Bouchagiar and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC (OJ 2014 L 357, p. 89).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC;

                  2.

                     Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by FIH Holding A/S and FIH A/S.

         (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case T-679/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Showroom v EUIPO — E-Gab (SHOWROOM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark SHOWROOM — Earlier EU figurative mark SHOWROOM86 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/56

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Showroom v EUIPO — E-Gab (SHOWROOM)
      (Case T-679/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark SHOWROOM - Earlier EU figurative mark SHOWROOM86 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 399/69)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

         Applicant: Showroom sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Janicka-Kapłon, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: E-Gab NV (Ternat, Belgium)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2018 (Case R 1834/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between E-Gab and Showroom.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Showroom sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.


title: Case T-649/18: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — ruwido austria v EUIPO (transparent pairing) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark transparent pairing — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/61

      Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — ruwido austria v EUIPO (transparent pairing)
      (Case T-649/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark transparent pairing - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
      (2019/C 399/75)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: ruwido austria GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Austria) (represented by: A. Ginzburg, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2018 (Case R 2487/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign transparent pairing as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     ruwido austria GmbH shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.


title: Case T-55/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Cham Holding and Bena Properties v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/62

      Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Cham Holding and Bena Properties v Council
      (Case T-55/19) (1)

      (Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)
      (2019/C 399/77)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Cham Holding Co. SA (Damascis, Syria) and Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by A. Jaume and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicants.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Cham Holding Co. SA and Bena Properties Co. SA shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.


title: Case T-56/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/63

      Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
      (Case T-56/19) (1)

      (Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)
      (2019/C 399/78)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by A. Jaume and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.


title: Case T-57/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Makhlouf v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/64

      Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Makhlouf v Council
      (Case T-57/19) (1)

      (Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)
      (2019/C 399/79)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by A. Jaume and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Mr Rami Makhlouf shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.


title: Case T-58/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Othman v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/65

      Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Othman v Council
      (Case T-58/19) (1)

      (Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)
      (2019/C 399/80)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by A. Jaume and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Ms Razan Othman shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.


title: Case T-61/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/66

      Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council
      (Case T-61/19) (1)

      (Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)
      (2019/C 399/82)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by A. Jaume and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Drex Technologies SA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.


title: Case T-62/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/67

      Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
      (Case T-62/19) (1)

      (Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)
      (2019/C 399/83)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by A. Jaume and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Almashreq Investment Fund shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.


title: Case T-70/19: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO (LA PASSIATA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/67

      Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO (LA PASSIATA)
      (Case T-70/19) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
      (2019/C 399/84)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. L. Capostagno and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2018 (Case R 928/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Passi and Nosio.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

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

                  2.

                     Nosio SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.


title: Case T-137/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Souruh v Council (Action for damages — Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/68

      Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Souruh v Council
      (Case T-137/19) (1)

      (Action for damages - Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of jurisdiction)
      (2019/C 399/85)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Jaume and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018, amending Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018, L 131, p. 16), and its subsequent implementing acts, and following Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019, amending Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as they concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Souruh SA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.


title: Case T-142/19: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (PASSIATA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/69

      Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (PASSIATA)
      (Case T-142/19) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
      (2019/C 399/86)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. L. Capostagno and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2018 (Case R 927/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Passi and Nosio.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

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

                  2.

                     Nosio SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.