title: Case C-245/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Pedro Viejobueno Ibáñez, Emilia de la Vara González v Consejería de Educación de Castilla-La Mancha (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — National legislation which permits the termination of fixed-term employment contracts where the reason for recruitment ceases to apply — Teachers employed for the academic year — Termination of the employment relationship at the end of the teaching period — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC)

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/7

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Pedro Viejobueno Ibáñez, Emilia de la Vara González v Consejería de Educación de Castilla-La Mancha
      (Case C-245/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - National legislation which permits the termination of fixed-term employment contracts where the reason for recruitment ceases to apply - Teachers employed for the academic year - Termination of the employment relationship at the end of the teaching period - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC))
      (2019/C 25/08)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Pedro Viejobueno Ibáñez, Emilia de la Vara González

         Defendant: Consejería de Educación de Castilla-La Mancha

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows an employer to terminate, at the end of the teaching period, the employment relationship of fixed-term teachers recruited as interim civil servants for one academic year, on the ground that the conditions of necessity and urgency attached to their recruitment have ceased to apply on that date, whereas the employment relationship of indefinite duration of teachers who are established civil servants is maintained.

                  2.

                  Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows termination, at the end of the teaching period, of the fixed-term employment relationship of teachers recruited for one academic year as interim civil servants, even if this deprives those teachers of days of paid annual leave which correspond to that academic year, provided that such teachers receive an allowance on that account.

         (1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.


title: Case C-658/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Bologna (Italy) lodged on 22 October 2018 — UX v Governo della Repubblica italiana

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Bologna (Italy) lodged on 22 October 2018 — UX v Governo della Repubblica italiana
      (Case C-658/18)
      (2019/C 25/24)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Giudice di pace di Bologna

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: UX

         Defendant: Governo della Repubblica italiana

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does a giudice di pace (justice of the peace), when making a request for a preliminary ruling, meet the definition of an ordinary European court having jurisdiction to make a request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, even though — in breach of the guarantees of the independence and impartiality of ordinary European courts referred to by the Court of Justice in its judgments in Wilson (EU:C:2006:587, paragraphs 47 to 53), Associaçâo Sindical dos Juizes Portugueses (EU:C:2018:117, paragraphs 32 and 41 to 45), and Minister for Justice and Equality (EU:C:2018:586, paragraphs 50 to 54) — under national law, giudici di pace do not, because of their job insecurity, enjoy working conditions equivalent to those of professional judges, even though they perform the same judicial functions and are included in the national judicial system?

                  2.

                  If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is the work carried out by the applicant giudice di pace covered by the term ‘fixed-term worker’ for the purpose of Articles 1(3) and 7 of Directive 2003/88, (1) read in conjunction with Clause 2 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work implemented by Directive 1999/70/EC (2) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as interpreted by the Court of Justice in its judgments in O’ Brien (EU:C:2012:110) and King (EU:C:2017:914) and, if so, may an ordinary or professional judge be regarded as a permanent worker indistinguishable from a giudice di pace working for a fixed term, for the purposes of the application of the same working conditions as referred to in Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work implemented by Directive 1999/70/EC?

                  3.

                  If questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 267 TFEU and in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the liability of the Italian State for manifest infringement of Community law by courts adjudicating at last instance in the judgments in Köbler (EU:C:2003:513), Traghetti del Mediterraneo (EU:C:2006:391) and Commission v Italy (EU:C:2011:775), inconsistent with Article 2(3) and (3a) of Law No 117 of 13 April 1988 on the civil liability of judges, which provides for judicial liability for intentional fault or serious misconduct ‘in the event of manifest infringement of the law or of European Union law’ and which presents national courts with the choice — which, however it is made, gives rise to civil liability and liability to disciplinary action in relation to the State in cases in which the public authority itself is a substantive party, and in particular where the adjudicator of the case is a giudice di pace working for a fixed term and without effective legal, economic and social security protection –, as in the present case, of either infringing national legislation, by disapplying it and applying EU law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, or of infringing EU law and applying national legislation which precludes protection and is incompatible with Articles 1(3) and 7 of Directive 2003/88, Clauses 2 and 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work implemented by Directive 1999/70/EC, and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

                  4.

                  In accordance with Articles 2, 4(2) and (3), 6(1) 9, 10(1) and 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, may the conduct of the European Commission constitute a serious infringement of the law such as to provide the basis for an action concerning non-contractual liability brought against the European Union, as provided for in the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, where that institution refuses to initiate infringement proceedings or to bring before the Court of Justice … an action for failure to fulfil obligations based on a Member State’s infringement of EU law where, as in the present case, the following circumstances pertain:

                              —

                              by Communication DG EMPL/B2/DA-MAT/sk (2016), received by the Italian public authorities on 10 June 2016, the Commission concluded EU Pilot case 7779/15/EMPL with a finding against the Member State and gave notice of the impending initiation of infringement proceedings, having established the incompatibility with EU law of national legislation applicable to the services provided by magistrati onorari (honorary or lay judges) in so far as concerns the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts, unequal pay by comparison with that of magistrati ordinari or professionali (ordinary or professional judges), annual leave and maternity leave, albeit that such proceedings were never initiated;

                              —

                              by its communication of 21 December 2016, C(2016) 8600 final, the Commission stated that it remained within its discretion to decide whether or not and, if so, when to initiate infringement proceedings or bring a case before the Court of Justice, in whose case-law it is acknowledged that individuals are incapable of succeeding in actions against the Commission for refusal to initiate infringement proceedings?

                  5.

                  Independently of the answers to the first four questions, may Articles 268 and 274 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU be interpreted, in the light of Articles 2, 4(2) and (3), 6(1), 9, 10(1) and 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as meaning that an action concerning non-contractual liability brought against the European Union will not fall outside the jurisdiction of a national court in a case, such as the present case, in which the failure to apply within the national legal system the EU law which guarantees the principle of the independence and impartiality of courts has been determined to result partly from the Commission’s serious breach of the duties and obligations which arise from its role as guardian of the Treaties, and partly from the Commission’s discretion to decide whether or not and, if so, when to initiate infringement proceedings or bring a case before the Court of Justice, in whose case-law it is acknowledged that individuals are incapable of succeeding in actions against the Commission for refusal to initiate infringement proceedings, which thus renders ineffective the Court’s exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes concerning the non-contractual liability of the European Union?

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

         (2)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case T-207/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission (State aid — Tax scheme allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which are tax resident abroad — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its partial recovery — Provision enabling the scheme to continue to apply in part — Application for a stay of execution — Continuing interest in bringing proceedings — Legitimate expectations — Precise assurances given by the Commission — Legitimacy of the expectation — Temporal scope of the legitimate expectation)

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission
      (Case T-207/10) (1)

      ((State aid - Tax scheme allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which are tax resident abroad - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its partial recovery - Provision enabling the scheme to continue to apply in part - Application for a stay of execution - Continuing interest in bringing proceedings - Legitimate expectations - Precise assurances given by the Commission - Legitimacy of the expectation - Temporal scope of the legitimate expectation))
      (2019/C 25/40)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: initially, A. Cordewener and J. Schönfeld, and, subsequently, J. Schönfeld, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially B. Martenczuk, T. Maxian Rusche and C. Urraca Caviedes, and, subsequently, T. Maxian Rusche and C. Urraca Caviedes, and, finally, T. Maxian Rusche, C. Urraca Caviedes and K. Blanck-Putz, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Ebro Foods, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially, J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, and, subsequently, J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers), Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: initially, J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, and, subsequently, J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers), Iberdrola, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: initially, J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, and, subsequently, J. Ruiz Calzado, J. Domínguez Pérez and S. Völcker, lawyers) and Telefónica, SA (Madrid) (represented by: initially, J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, and, subsequently, J. Ruiz Calzado, J. Domínguez Pérez and S. Völcker, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Article 1(2) and (3) of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Deutsche Telekom AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case T-36/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Asahi Intecc v EUIPO — Celesio (Celeson) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark Celeson — Earlier international word mark CELESIO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Asahi Intecc v EUIPO — Celesio (Celeson)
      (Case T-36/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Celeson - Earlier international word mark CELESIO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 25/54)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd (Nagoya, Japan) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Celesio AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2017 (Case R 1004/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Celesio and Asahi Intecc.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd to bear the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case C-452/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Liège — Belgium) — Zako SPRL v Sanidel SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Article 1(2) — Definition of ‘commercial agent’ — Self-employed intermediary performing his activities from the principal’s business premises — Performance of tasks other than those related to the negotiation of sales or the purchase of goods for the principal)

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/9

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Liège — Belgium) — Zako SPRL v Sanidel SA
      (Case C-452/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 1(2) - Definition of ‘commercial agent’ - Self-employed intermediary performing his activities from the principal’s business premises - Performance of tasks other than those related to the negotiation of sales or the purchase of goods for the principal))
      (2019/C 25/10)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal de commerce de Liège

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Zako SPRL

         Defendant: Sanidel SA

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 1(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person who has continuing authority to negotiate the sale or the purchase of goods on behalf of another person, or to negotiate and conclude such transactions on behalf of and in the name of that person, performs his activities from the latter’s business premises does not prevent him from being classified as a ‘commercial agent’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that that fact does not prevent that person from performing his activities in an independent manner, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

                  2.

                  Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person not only performs activities consisting in the negotiation of the sale or purchase of goods for another person, or the negotiation and conclusion of those transactions on behalf of and in the name of that other person, but also performs, for the same person, activities of another kind, without those other activities being subsidiary to the first kind of activities, does not preclude that person from being classified as a ‘commercial agent’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that that fact does not prevent the former activities from being performed in an independent manner, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-219/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — World Duty Free Group v Commission (State aid — Provisions concerning corporate tax allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which are tax resident abroad — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Selectivity — Reference system — Derogation — Difference in treatment — Justification of the difference in treatment — Undertakings benefiting from the measure — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — World Duty Free Group v Commission
      (Case T-219/10 RENV) (1)

      ((State aid - Provisions concerning corporate tax allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which are tax resident abroad - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification of the difference in treatment - Undertakings benefiting from the measure - Legitimate expectations))
      (2019/C 25/41)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: World Duty Free Group, SA, formerly Autogrill España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, acting as Agent), Ireland (represented by: initially, G. Hodge and E. Creedon, and, subsequently, G. Hodge and D. Browne, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty and A. Goodman, Barristers) and Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48) and, in the alternative, of Article 4 of that decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders World Duty Free Group, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own respective costs.

         (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case T-227/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Banco Santander v Commission (State aid — Provisions concerning corporate tax allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which are tax resident abroad — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Selectivity — Reference system — Derogation — Difference in treatment — Justification of the difference in treatment — Undertakings benefiting from the measure — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Banco Santander v Commission
      (Case T-227/10) (1)

      ((State aid - Provisions concerning corporate tax allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which are tax resident abroad - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification of the difference in treatment - Undertakings benefiting from the measure - Legitimate expectations))
      (2019/C 25/42)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: initially, J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, and, subsequently, J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48) and, in the alternative, annulment of Article 4 of that decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Banco Santander, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case C-660/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 22 October 2018 — Sundair GmbH v WV and Others

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/21

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 22 October 2018 — Sundair GmbH v WV and Others
      (Case C-660/18)
      (2019/C 25/25)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landgericht Berlin

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Sundair GmbH

         Defendant: WV, XU, YT, represented by XU and ZS

         Question referred

      Is Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 5(1)(c), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, (1) to be interpreted as meaning that affected passengers are entitled to compensation for the cancellation of a flight even when the air carrier does not hold a valid operating licence within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Regulation (EU) No 261/2004, the cancellation is at least in part attributable to the absence of a valid operating licence and the passengers had no knowledge of the fact that there was no operating licence at the time of booking?

         (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-521/18: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/47

      Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)
      (Case T-521/18) (1)

      (2019/C 65/64)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.


title: Case T-83/19: Action brought on 12 February 2019 — AL v Commission

text:
               1.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 122/28

      Action brought on 12 February 2019 — AL v Commission
      (Case T-83/19)
      (2019/C 122/32)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: AL (represented by: A. Blot and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the action admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  annul the decision implicitly rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation submitted on 19 December 2017 and, if necessary, the decision of 12 November 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

                  —

                  compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging breach of the defendant’s contractual commitments to the applicant, in that the Commission failed to comply with the undertaking it had given by appointing the applicant as the European Union facilitator for the Congo Basin Forests Partnership.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of respect for legitimate expectations.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.


title: Case T-85/19: Action brought on 14 February 2019 — Gwo Chyang Biotech v EUIPO — Norma (KinGirls)

text:
               1.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 122/29

      Action brought on 14 February 2019 — Gwo Chyang Biotech v EUIPO — Norma (KinGirls)
      (Case T-85/19)
      (2019/C 122/33)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Gwo Chyang Biotech Co. Ltd (Tainan, Taiwan) (represented by: J. Kakoures, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the mark at issue: Applicant

         Mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark KinGirls — Application for registration No 15 151 038

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2018 in Case R 718/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision in so far as it upheld the opposition in respect of goods in Class 3 and reject the opposition in its entirety;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs of the opposition, appeal and present proceedings.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-510/17: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 24 January 2019 (request for a preliminaryruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava — Slovakia) — ML

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/23

      Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 24 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava — Slovakia) — ML
      (Case C-510/17) (1)

      (2019/C 172/27)
      Language of the case: Slovak
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.


title: Case T-138/19: Action brought on 14 February 2019 — WH v EUIPO

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/59

      Action brought on 14 February 2019 — WH v EUIPO
      (Case T-138/19)
      (2019/C 148/58)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: WH (represented by: E. Fontes Vila, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should hold that the dismissal of her action is unjustified and grant her, with full retroactive effect, the promotion which she rightfully deserves.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action concerns the defendant’s decision not to promote the applicant in the 2018 promotion procedure.
      In support of her action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of her rights of defence as a result of procedural unfairness.


title: Case T-141/19: Action brought on 4 March 2019 — Sabo and Others v Parliament and Council

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/60

      Action brought on 4 March 2019 — Sabo and Others v Parliament and Council
      (Case T-141/19)
      (2019/C 148/59)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Peter Sabo (Tulčik, Slovakia) and six other applicants (represented by: R. Smith, Solicitor)

         Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should declare void those provisions of the Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) that allow for energy from forest biomass to count towards the Article 29(1) purposes: namely (a) contributing towards the Collective Target for 2030; (b) measuring compliance with renewable energy obligations, and (c) eligibility for financial support.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Directive 2018/2001 violates Art 191 TFEU because it fails to preserve, protect or improve the quality of the environment, to protect human health, or to use natural resources prudently or rationally. It does not aim at a high level of environmental protection, it fails to rectify damage at source and fails to apply the precautionary principle or make the polluter pay. It also ignores available scientific data on the climate change impacts of burning forest biomass.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Directive 2018/2001 violates numerous rights of the applicants (recognized by Articles 7, 10, 14, 17, 22, 24, 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) that are universal and must be respected for both EU and non-EU applicants. These infringements cannot possibly be justified, because the infringing provisions of the contested Directive are not necessary or rationally connected to the environmental protection objectives of the Union, to which they run contrary.

         (1)  Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 82).


title: Case T-142/19: Action brought on 1 March 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (PASSIATA)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/60

      Action brought on 1 March 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (PASSIATA)
      (Case T-142/19)
      (2019/C 148/60)
      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 (EUIPO)

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

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PASSIATA — Application for registration No 14 593 123

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2018 in Case R 927/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-143/19: Action brought on 2 March 2019 — Solar Ileias Bompaina v Commission

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/61

      Action brought on 2 March 2019 — Solar Ileias Bompaina v Commission
      (Case T-143/19)
      (2019/C 148/61)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Solar Ileias Bompaina AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: A. Metaxas and A. Bartosch, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested acts of the Commission, i.e., Decision C(2018) 6777 final of 10 October 2018 to the extent that it rejects the complaints brought before the Commission in Case SA.41794 and specifically only the paragraphs 111-121 of that Decision as well as the Letter dated 8.2.2019 (B.2 VI/MJ/mkl D*2019/019026);

                  —

                  order the Commission to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural rights of the applicant, because of the omission to define the relevant reference system as the prerogative for assessing the material selectivity of the contested measure, the incorrect assessment of facts presented to the Commission during the administrative procedure as to the compatibility of RES producers and energy suppliers, the wrongful legal analysis of the criterion of comparability to be carried out when assessing the material selectivity of the contested measure, the insufficient reasoning underpinning the apparent lack of carrying out a diligent assessment, as well as the erroneous assessment of the subject due to incorrect application of the invoked jurisprudence.


title: Case T-147/19: Action brought on 6 March 2019 — Flovax v EUIPO — Dagniaux and Gervais Danone (GLACIER DAGNIAUX DEPUIS 1923)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/62

      Action brought on 6 March 2019 — Flovax v EUIPO — Dagniaux and Gervais Danone (GLACIER DAGNIAUX DEPUIS 1923)
      (Case T-147/19)
      (2019/C 148/62)
      Language in which the application was lodged: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Flovax Sàrl (Doncols, Luxembourg) (represented by: C.-S. Marchiani, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dagniaux (Roubaix, France), Compagnie Gervais Danone (Paris, France)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, Compagnie Gervais Danone

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative colour mark GLACIER DAGNIAUX DEPUIS 1923 ‘Text and paint: Pantone blue no 302; background Pantone no 1205c (cream)’ — EU trade mark No 896 480

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2018 in Case R 2210/2016-1 and R 2211/2016-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 18 May 2018 in Cases R 2210/2016-1 and R 2211/2016-1;

                  —

                  declare admissible appeal R 2211/2016-1 lodged by FLOVAX before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office;

                  —

                  annul Cancellation Division Decision No 10417 C taken on the basis of Article 55(1) of the EU trade mark regulation, following the application for revocation registered on 22 October 2015 by Compagnie Gervais Danone, rejecting in its entirety that application for revocation;

                  —

                  order Compagnie Gervais Danone to pay to the proprietor of the mark the cancellation fee and representation costs, set out on the basis of the maximum rate indicated in Article 94 of the EU trade mark regulation.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 70 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Breach of the principle of audi alteram partem;

                  —

                  Error of law in the Board of Appeal’s assessment of the conditions for establishing inadmissibility in the action before it.


title: Case T-156/19: Action brought on 12 March 2019 — Koenig & Bauer v EUIPO (we’re on it)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/63

      Action brought on 12 March 2019 — Koenig & Bauer v EUIPO (we’re on it)
      (Case T-156/19)
      (2019/C 148/63)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Koenig & Bauer AG (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: B. Reinisch, B. Sorg and M. Ringer, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Registration of EU word mark we’re on it — Application for registration No 16 983 066

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2019 in Case R 1027/2018-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and amend it to the effect that EUIPO’s decision of 23 April 2018 rejecting EU trade mark application No 16 983 066 is annulled, continue the registration procedure of EU trade mark application No 16 983 066 and refund the applicant (applicant for the contested mark) the costs incurred in relation to the appeal;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-507/16: Order of the General Court of 1 March 2019 — Baradel and Others v EIF

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/64

      Order of the General Court of 1 March 2019 — Baradel and Others v EIF
      (Case T-507/16) (1)

      (2019/C 148/64)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-51/13 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-760/18: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2019 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO — New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX BRENT)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/64

      Order of the General Court of 15 February 2019 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO — New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX BRENT)
      (Case T-760/18) (1)

      (2019/C 148/65)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.


title: Case C-90/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Rieco SpA v Comune di Ortona, Ecolan SpA

text:
               27.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/7

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Rieco SpA v Comune di Ortona, Ecolan SpA
      (Case C-90/19)
      (2019/C 182/09)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Rieco SpA

         Respondents: Comune di Ortona, Ecolan SpA

         Questions referred

                  1.

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

                  2.

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

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


title: Joined Cases C-582/17 and C-583/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 April 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v H. (C-582/17), R. (C-583/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Article 18(1)(b) to (d) — Article 23(1) — Article 24(1) — Take back procedure — Criteria for determining responsibility — New application lodged in another Member State — Article 20(5) — Ongoing determination process — Withdrawal of the application — Article 27 — Remedies)

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/5

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 April 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v H. (C-582/17), R. (C-583/17)
      (Joined Cases C-582/17 and C-583/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Article 18(1)(b) to (d) - Article 23(1) - Article 24(1) - Take back procedure - Criteria for determining responsibility - New application lodged in another Member State - Article 20(5) - Ongoing determination process - Withdrawal of the application - Article 27 - Remedies)
      (2019/C 206/06)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Raad van State

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

         Defendants: H. (C-582/17), R. (C-583/17)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national who lodged an application for international protection in a first Member State, then left that Member State and subsequently lodged a new application for international protection in a second Member State:

                  —

                  is not, in principle, entitled to rely, in an action brought under Article 27(1) of the Regulation in that second Member State against a decision to transfer him or her, on the criterion for determining responsibility set out in Article 9 thereof;

                  —

                  may, by way of exception, invoke, in such an action, that criterion for determining responsibility, in a situation covered by Article 20(5) of the Regulation, in so far as that third-country national has provided the competent authority of the requesting Member State with information clearly establishing that it should be regarded as the Member State responsible for examining the application pursuant to that criterion for determining responsibility.

         (1)  OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.


title: Case C-169/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale Per la Regione Puglia (Italy) lodged on 25 February 2019 — IC v Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/21

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale Per la Regione Puglia (Italy) lodged on 25 February 2019 — IC v Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale
      (Case C-169/19)
      (2019/C 206/25)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale Per la Regione Puglia

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: IC

         Defendant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

         Question referred

      Must Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides for the taxation, in that Member State, of the income of a person resident in another Member State who receives all of his income from the first Member State but who does not hold the nationality of the second Member State, without the benefit of the tax advantages provided by that second Member State?


title: Case T-196/19: Action brought on 4 April 2019 — AZ v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/41

      Action brought on 4 April 2019 — AZ v Commission
      (Case T-196/19)
      (2019/C 213/43)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: AZ (represented by: represented by F. Wagner and N. Voß, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

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

                  2.

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

                  3.

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

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


title: Case T-232/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — H&R Ölwerke Schindler v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/50

      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — H&R Ölwerke Schindler v Commission
      (Case T-232/19)
      (2019/C 213/50)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: H&R Ölwerke Schindler GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Wagner and N. Voß, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

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

                  2.

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

                  3.

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

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


title: Case C-265/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Akvilė Jarmuškienė (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common System of Value Added Tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Special scheme for small enterprises — Articles 282 to 292 — VAT exemption for small enterprises whose annual turnover is below the fixed threshold — Simultaneous supply of two immovable properties in a single transaction — Annual turnover limit exceeded in view of the sale price of one of the two properties — Obligation to pay tax on the total value of the transaction)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/10

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Akvilė Jarmuškienė
      (Case C-265/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common System of Value Added Tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Special scheme for small enterprises - Articles 282 to 292 - VAT exemption for small enterprises whose annual turnover is below the fixed threshold - Simultaneous supply of two immovable properties in a single transaction - Annual turnover limit exceeded in view of the sale price of one of the two properties - Obligation to pay tax on the total value of the transaction)
      (2019/C 220/13)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

         Respondent: Akvilė Jarmuškienė

         Other party: Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 282 to 292 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where a supply, to the same purchaser, comprises two immovable properties, linked by their nature and coming under a single contract of sale, and the annual turnover limit serving as a reference for the purposes of applying the special scheme for small enterprises provided for by that directive is exceeded, the taxable person is required to pay tax on the basis of the entire value of the supply in question, that is to say, taking into account the value of both the properties being supplied, even where taking into account the value of one of those properties would not lead to that annual limit being exceeded.

         (1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.


title: Case C-268/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău — Romania) — SC Onlineshop SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined nomenclature — Subheadings 85269120 and 85285900 — GPS navigation system with multiple functions)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/11

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău — Romania) — SC Onlineshop SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor
      (Case C-268/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined nomenclature - Subheadings 85269120 and 85285900 - GPS navigation system with multiple functions)
      (2019/C 220/14)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel Bacău

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: SC Onlineshop SRL

         Respondents: Agenția Natională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor

         Operative part of the judgment

      The combined nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that multifunctional devices of the kind used in motor vehicles which, like that at issue in the main proceedings, combine, in the same housing, as its primary function, a radio navigation monitor which uses pre-installed GPS navigation applications and, subsidiarily, a radio broadcasting transmitter, an audio/video reproduction apparatus and a screen with a diagonal measurement of approximately 5 inches (12.7 cm), must be classified under subheading 85269120 in that nomenclature.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.


title: Case C-294/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the markkinaoikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Oulun Sähkönmyynti Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Energy efficiency — Directive 2012/27/EU — Article 11(1) — Cost of access to metering and billing information — Right of final customers to receive all their bills and billing information relating to their energy consumption free of charge — Electricity network charges — Discount on electricity network charges granted by an electricity retail sales company to customers who have chosen electronic billing)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/12

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the markkinaoikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Oulun Sähkönmyynti Oy
      (Case C-294/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy efficiency - Directive 2012/27/EU - Article 11(1) - Cost of access to metering and billing information - Right of final customers to receive all their bills and billing information relating to their energy consumption free of charge - Electricity network charges - Discount on electricity network charges granted by an electricity retail sales company to customers who have chosen electronic billing)
      (2019/C 220/15)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Markkinaoikeus

         Party to the main proceedings

      Oulun Sähkönmyynti Oy

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 11(1) of Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC must be interpreted as not preluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a discount on electricity network charges granted by an electricity retail sales company exclusively to final customers who have chosen electronic billing.

         (1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.


title: Case C-309/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico, Comune di Supino, Comune di Sgurgola, Comune di Trivigliano (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of a tenderer who has failed to state those costs separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/12

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico, Comune di Supino, Comune di Sgurgola, Comune di Trivigliano
      (Case C-309/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Labour costs - Automatic exclusion of a tenderer who has failed to state those costs separately in the tender - Principle of proportionality)
      (2019/C 220/16)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Lavorgna Srl

         Defendants: Comune di Montelanico, Comune di Supino, Comune di Sgurgola, Comune di Trivigliano

         Intervener: Gea Srl

         Operative part of the judgment

      The principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and transparency, as referred to in 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 not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the failure to state labour costs separately, in a financial tender submitted in a public contract award procedure, entails the exclusion of that tender without the possibility of supplementing or amending the tendering documentation, including in a situation where the obligation to state those costs separately is not specified in the tender specifications, in so far as that condition and that possibility of excluding tenders are clearly provided for by national legislation on public procurement procedures in which explicit reference was made to that legislation. However, if the provisions of the call for tenders do not allow tenderers to state those costs in their financial tenders, the principles of transparency and proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding tenderers being allowed to rectify their situation and fulfil the obligations provided for by national legislation in the field within a time limit set by the contracting authority.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case C-330/18: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 — Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament (Appeal — European Parliament — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/14

      Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 — Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament
      (Case C-330/18) (1)

      (Appeal - European Parliament - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid)
      (2019/C 220/18)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Bruno Gollnisch is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.


title: Case C-462/18 P: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 — Mylène Troszczynski v European Parliament (Appeal — European Parliament — Rules governing the expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/15

      Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 — Mylène Troszczynski v European Parliament
      (Case C-462/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - European Parliament - Rules governing the expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid)
      (2019/C 220/19)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Mylène Troszczynski (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by S. Seyr and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Ms Mylène Troszczynski shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018


title: Case C-99/19 P: Appeal brought on 7 January 2019 by BI against the order of the President of the General Court delivered on 26 November 2018 in Case T-626/18 AJ BI v European Commission

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/15

      Appeal brought on 7 January 2019 by BI against the order of the President of the General Court delivered on 26 November 2018 in Case T-626/18 AJ BI v European Commission
      (Case C-99/19 P)
      (2019/C 220/20)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: BI

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
      The Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal by order of 21 May 2019 and ordered the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.


title: Case C-123/19 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2019 by Vans, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2018 in Case T-817/16, Vans, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/16

      Appeal brought on 18 February 2019 by Vans, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2018 in Case T-817/16, Vans, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      (Case C-123/19 P)
      (2019/C 220/21)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Vans, Inc. (represented by: M. Hirsch and M. Metzner, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Deichmann SE

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  1.

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 in Case T-817/16, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 21 September 2016 in Case R2030/2015-4 and reject the opposition in its entirety;

                  2.

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The General Court incorrectly proceeded on the basis that the intervener had sufficiently substantiated the earlier mark; in particular, the General Court interpreted the concept of ‘equivalent document’ under Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (1) (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) (2) too broadly;

                  —

                  Contrary to what the General Court found, an extract from the TMView database is not an ‘equivalent document’ within the meaning of Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 2868/95; this is apparent, first, from the clear wording of the provision, which refers, in respect of authorised equivalent documents, to the nature, not the origin, of the document, and, second, from the rationale behind the provision;

                  —

                  Nor can an extract from TMView be established as substantiating evidence on the basis of the properties of the database;

                  —

                  The opposition would therefore have to be rejected simply because the earlier right was not substantiated;

                  —

                  Furthermore, the General Court incorrectly proceeded on the basis that there is a likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue; in particular, while the General Court noted the existing differences between the signs, it did not consider them any further when assessing the visual similarity of the signs, but merely stated generally and without further reasoning that the signs were visually similar to an average degree.

         (1)  Commission Regulation of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 303, 15.12.1995, p. 1).

         (2)  Commission Regulation of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 (OJ L 104, 24.4.2018, p. 1).


title: Case C-125/19 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2019 by Vans, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2018 in Case T-848/16, Deichmann SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/17

      Appeal brought on 18 February 2019 by Vans, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2018 in Case T-848/16, Deichmann SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office
      (Case C-125/19 P)
      (2019/C 220/22)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Vans, Inc. (represented by: M. Hirsch and M. Metzner, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Deichmann SE

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 in Case T-848/16 and dismiss the action;

                  —

                  order Deichmann SE to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The General Court incorrectly proceeded on the basis that Deichmann had sufficiently substantiated the earlier marks; in particular, the General Court interpreted the concept of ‘equivalent document’ under Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 2868/95 (1) (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) (2) too broadly.
      Contrary to what the General Court found, an extract from the TMView database is not an ‘equivalent document’ within the meaning of Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 2868/95; this is apparent, first, from the clear wording of the provision, which refers, in respect of authorised equivalent documents, to the nature, not the origin, of the document, and, second, from the rationale behind the provision.
      Nor can an extract from TMView be established as substantiating evidence on the basis of the properties of the database.
      The opposition would therefore — as the Board of Appeal correctly established — have to be rejected simply because the earlier rights were not substantiated.

         (1)  Commission Regulation of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 303, 15.12.1995, p. 1).

         (2)  Commission Regulation of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 (OJ L 104, 24.4.2018, p. 1).


title: Case C-292/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 April 2019 — PORR Építési Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 April 2019 — PORR Építési Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
      (Case C-292/19)
      (2019/C 220/24)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: PORR Építési Kft.

         Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should Article 90(1) and (2) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that Member States must allow the reduction of the VAT taxable amount where it can be demonstrated definitively that the taxable person has not received all or part of the consideration in respect of the transaction entered into by that person?

                  2.

                  Should the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union be interpreted, taking into account, in particular, the judgments in Almos, (C-337/13), paragraph 23, Di Maura, (C-246/16), paragraphs 20 to 29, and, by analogy, T-2, (C-396/16), paragraphs 31 to 45, as meaning that, as regards the obligation of the Member States, laid down in Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive, to reduce a posteriori the taxable amount, a distinction must be made between total or partial non-payment of the consideration by the purchaser and the situation in which the sum due to the seller has become definitively unrecoverable, so that, in the first situation, the Member State may make use of the exception provided for in Article 90(2), whereas in the second situation use of that exception is precluded and the Member State must, in any event, permit the taxable amount to be reduced a posteriori?

         (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p.1)


title: Case C-394/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 21 May 2019 — PN, QO, RP, SQ, TR v Centre public d’action sociale d’Anderlecht (CPAS)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/14

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 21 May 2019 — PN, QO, RP, SQ, TR v Centre public d’action sociale d’Anderlecht (CPAS)
      (Case C-394/19)
      (2019/C 246/14)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: PN, QO, RP, SQ, TR

         Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale d’Anderlecht (CPAS)

         Question referred

      Is the principle of full effectiveness of the rules of European Law and the protection of those rules, as defined in the Francovich and Brasserie du pêcheur judgments, in conjunction with Directive 2004/38/EC, (1) to be interpreted as imposing an obligation on a Member State, in circumstances where the right of residence of a foreign national has been withdrawn without prior consideration of proportionality, as a result of an error in transposition into domestic law, to cover, within the framework of its welfare system, the basic needs of the applicant other than medical needs, until the applicant’s position as regards the right of residence has been determined in conformity with EU law?

         (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Case C-395/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Nice (France) lodged on 22 May 2019 — VT, WU v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/14

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Nice (France) lodged on 22 May 2019 — VT, WU v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd
      (Case C-395/19)
      (2019/C 246/15)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal d’instance de Nice

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: VT, WU

         Defendant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  The applicability of Article 3(2)(a) in the case of delay

                              (a)

                              Having regard to the fact that as the result of a case-law construct (judgment of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2009, Sturgeon, C-402/07 and C-432/07, EU:C:2009:716), the right to compensation that Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (1) establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 establishes for denied boarding or cancellation was extended to include delayed flights, does the express condition that passengers must present themselves for check-in laid down in Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, which applies only in the case of denied boarding, apply in the context of compensation claimed by a passenger who has not been denied boarding but whose flight has been delayed?

                              (b)

                              If the answer to question 1(a) is in the affirmative, must the time limit of not later than 45 minutes before the published departure time laid down by Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 be interpreted, in that case, as being not later than 45 minutes before the new departure time of the delayed flight published on the airport information boards or communicated to passengers?

                  2.

                  The burden of proving ‘presentation at check-in’

                              If the answer to question 1(a) is in the affirmative, that is to say, if Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 does apply to compensation applied for by a passenger whose flight has been delayed:

                                          Are the conditions established in Article 3(2)(a) preconditions that the consumer must prove to have been satisfied in order for the regulation to apply, or grounds for exonerating the airline by allowing it to produce the passenger list in order to show that the consumer did not present him or herself for check-in “as stipulated and at the time indicated in advance and in writing (including by electronic means) by the air carrier, the tour operator or an authorised travel agent, or, if no time is indicated, not later than 45 minutes before the published departure time” to which Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 refers, in the light of technological developments that now allow boarding cards to be issued electronically, the absence of any time stamp on paper boarding cards, the correlative absence of any obligation for passengers to present themselves physically at a check-in counter and the fact that the airlines alone hold all the information about passenger check-in until check-in operations are closed?

                              If the answer to question 1(a) is in the affirmative, that is to say, if Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 does apply to compensation applied for by a passenger whose flight has been delayed:

                                          Does the burden of proof of the actual presentation of a passenger bringing legal proceedings ‘as stipulated and at the time indicated in advance and in writing (including by electronic means) by the air carrier, the tour operator or an authorised travel agent, or, if no time is indicated, not later than 45 minutes before the published departure time’ to which Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, fall exclusively on the passenger in the light of technological developments that now allow boarding cards to be issued electronically, the absence of any time stamp on paper boarding cards, the correlative absence of any obligation for passengers to present themselves physically at a check-in counter and the fact that the airlines alone hold all the information about passenger check-in until check-in operations are closed?

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


title: Case C-413/19: Action brought on 24 May 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/16

      Action brought on 24 May 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
      (Case C-413/19)
      (2019/C 246/16)
      Language of the case: Slovenian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kocjan and K. Talabér-Ritz)

         Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

         Form of order sought

      The Commission claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, by having limited the obligation to demonstrate energy performance to buildings owned or used by public authorities, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 13(2) of the Directive on the energy performance of buildings; (1)

                  —

                  order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Under Article 13(2) of Directive (EU) 2010/31/EU, the Member States must require that where a total useful floor area over 500 m2 of a building for which an energy performance certificate has been issued in accordance with Article 12(1) is frequently visited by the public, the energy performance certificate is displayed in a prominent place clearly visible to the public. Since the Republic of Slovenia has imposed that requirement only for buildings owned or used by public bodies, the Commission has decided to bring an action before the Court.

         (1)  Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13).


title: Case T-366/16: Order of the General Court of 27 September 2017 — Gaki v Europol (Action for annulment and damages — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Applications seeking an injunction — Manifest inadmissibility — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/35

         Order of the General Court of 27 September 2017 — Gaki v Europol
   (Case T-366/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment and damages - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Applications seeking an injunction - Manifest inadmissibility - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2017/C 402/46)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Anastasia-Soultana Gaki (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: initially by A. Heinen, and subsequently by G. Keisers, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann and S. Ryder, acting as Agents, and by R. van der Hout and P. Lux, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU requesting that, in essence, Europol be ordered to undertake certain actions, and seeking annulment of the decision of the Joint Supervisory Body of Europol of 4 May 2016 concerning a complaint filed by the applicant, and application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Ms Anastasia-Soultana Gaki is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Case T-651/17: Action brought on 22 September 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools (Spray gun for paint)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/46

         Action brought on 22 September 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools (Spray gun for paint)
   (Case T-651/17)
   (2017/C 402/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: Community design of a ‘spray gun for paint’; Community design No 1259626-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 914/2016-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and — if applicable — Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools Co. Ltd to jointly and severely pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 6.1(b), 6.2, 60.1, 62 and 64 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case T-184/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2017 — NRJ Group v EUIPO — Sky International (SKY ENERGY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark SKY ENERGY — Earlier EU word mark NRJ — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2017 — NRJ Group v EUIPO — Sky International (SKY ENERGY)
   (Case T-184/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark SKY ENERGY - Earlier EU word mark NRJ - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
   (2017/C 402/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NRJ Group (Boileau, France) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sky International AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2016 (Case R 3137/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between NRJ Group and Sky International.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders NRJ Group to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Case T-841/16: Order of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Alex v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Financing of an urban development project — Complaint — Preliminary examination procedure — Decision of the Commission finding no State aid — Action challenging the merits of the Commission’s decision — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/36

         Order of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Alex v Commission
   (Case T-841/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Financing of an urban development project - Complaint - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision of the Commission finding no State aid - Action challenging the merits of the Commission’s decision - No individual concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 402/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alex SCI (Bayonne, France) (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K Herrmann and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting a complaint relating to State aid allegedly unlawfully granted by the French Republic to the Côte-Basque-Adour Conurbation Authority (SA.44409).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the French Republic’s application for leave to intervene.

               3.

               Alex SCI shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The French Republic shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.