title: Case C-10/18 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Marine Harvest ASA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2017 in Case T-704/14: Marine Harvest ASA v European Commission

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/22

         Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Marine Harvest ASA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2017 in Case T-704/14: Marine Harvest ASA v European Commission
   (Case C-10/18 P)
   (2018/C 142/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Marine Harvest ASA (represented by: R. Subiotto QC)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the General Court’s judgment, in whole or in part;

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 23 July 2014 or, in the alternative, annul the fines imposed on the appellant pursuant to the decision or, in the further alternative, substantially reduce the fines imposed on the appellant pursuant to the decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the appellant’s legal and other costs, both these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court;

               —

               If necessary, remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration in accordance with the Court’s judgment;

               —

               Take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               By its first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in failing to apply Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (‘EUMR’) in this case.

                           a.

                           First, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of the ‘single concentration’ concept, in particular in dismissing Recital 20 of EUMR as a basis for interpreting the EU legislator’s intent to treat as a ‘single concentration’ all transactions that ‘are linked by a condition’.

                           b.

                           Second, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of the rationale of Article 7(2) EUMR.

               2.

               By its second plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in imposing two fines for the same conduct.

                           a.

                           The judgment violated the principle of ne bis in idem by fining Marine Harvest twice for acquiring title to Mr. Malek’s 48,5 % shareholding: €10 million once on the basis of Article 14(2)(a) EUMR for allegedly implementing the concentration prior to notification (alleged infringement of Article 4(1) EUMR) and a further €10 million on the basis of Article 14(2)(b) EUMR for allegedly implementing the concentration prior to clearance (alleged infringement of Article 7(1) EUMR).

                           b.

                           In the alternative, the judgment violated the set-off principle because it failed to take into account the first penalty when determining the second penalty.

                           c.

                           In the further alternative, the judgment erred in law in failing to apply the principle of concurrent offences: the alleged breach of the notification obligation in Article 4(1) was the more specific offence and therefore subsumed the alleged breach of the standstill obligation in Article 7(1) EUMR, which was the more general offence.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004, L 24, p. 1).


title: Case T-123/18: Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Bayer Intellectual Property v EUIPO (Representation of a heart)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/64

         Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Bayer Intellectual Property v EUIPO (Representation of a heart)
   (Case T-123/18)
   (2018/C 142/82)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a heart) — Application for registration No 15 701 568

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 in Case R 145/2017-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               uphold the applicant’s appeal before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.


title: Case C-9/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Maria Tirkkonen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Tendering procedure for public contracts for farm advisory services — Whether or not there is a public contract — Scheme for obtaining services open to any economic operator who satisfies previously established conditions — Scheme not subsequently open to other economic operators)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Maria Tirkkonen
   (Case C-9/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Tendering procedure for public contracts for farm advisory services - Whether or not there is a public contract - Scheme for obtaining services open to any economic operator who satisfies previously established conditions - Scheme not subsequently open to other economic operators))
   (2018/C 142/16)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Maria Tirkkonen

      Intervener: Maaseutuvirasto

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a farm advisory scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, through which a public entity admits all the economic operators who meet the suitability requirements set out in the invitation to tender and who pass the examination referred to in that invitation to tender, even if no new operator can be admitted during the limited validity period of that scheme, does not constitute a public contract within the meaning of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.


title: Case C-144/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2017 in Case T-460/14: Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) v Council of the European Union

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/37

         Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2017 in Case T-460/14: Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-144/18 P)
   (2018/C 142/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD), Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 in Case T-460/14, Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) v Council of the European Union; and

               —

               order the Applicant to pay the Appellant’s costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-460/14.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the General Court’s findings are vitiated by several errors of law and by a distortion of the facts and the evidence before it. The appellant therefore submits that the contested judgment should be set aside.
   The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.
   First, the contested judgment’s failure to address the appellant’s objections to the admissibility of the original application — including with respect to the fourth plea — infringed the appellant’s rights of defense before the General Court. The contested judgment ignored the appellant’s inadmissibility claims without providing a reason/motivation as to why it was not necessary to address the appellant’s objections.
   Second, by classifying the issue of the allocation of costs as one related to the determination of the normal value and hence the dumping margin calculation, and not as one related to the existence of a lasting change in circumstances, the contested judgment has distorted the evidence. None of the submissions made by the applicant during the administrative proceeding link the issue of the allocation of costs to the calculation of the dumping margin.
   Finally, the contested judgment violates Article 10 of the basic Regulation (1) as well as the general principle of non-retroactivity as the appellant’s antidumping duty is effectively retroactively increased from 3,6 % to 12,8 %.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51).


title: Case C-13/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 January 2018 — Sole-Mizo Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 January 2018 — Sole-Mizo Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
   (Case C-13/18)
   (2018/C 142/31)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sole-Mizo Zrt.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a practice of a Member State pursuant to which, when the relevant default-interest provisions are examined, it is proceeded on the basis that the national tax authority has not committed an infringement (failure to act) — that is, it has not delayed payment as regards the non-recoverable part of the value added tax (‘VAT’) … on the taxable persons’ unpaid purchases — because when the national tax authority adopted its decision, the national legislation infringing Community law was in force and it was not until later that the Court of Justice declared that the requirement laid down in that legislation did not comply with Community law, consistent with the provisions of Community law, with the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’) (1) (having regard in particular to Article 183 thereof), and with the principles of effectiveness, direct effect and equivalence?

               2.

               Is a practice of a Member State which, when the relevant default-interest provisions are examined, distinguishes between whether the national tax authority failed to refund the tax in compliance with the national provisions then in force — which, moreover, infringed Community law — or whether it failed to do so in breach of such provisions and which, as regards the amount of the interest accrued on the VAT whose refund could not be claimed within a reasonable period due to a national-law requirement declared contrary to EU law by the Court of Justice, sets out two definable periods, with the result that,

                           —

                           in the first period, taxable persons only have the right to receive default interest at the central bank base rate, in view of the fact that since the Hungarian legislation contrary to Community law was still then in force, the Hungarian tax authorities did not act unlawfully by not authorising the payment within a reasonable period of the VAT included in the invoices, whereas

                           —

                           in the second period interest double the central bank base rate — applicable moreover in the event of delay in the legal system of the Member State in question — must be paid only for the late payment of the default interest corresponding to the first period

                     consistent with Community law, in particular with the provisions of the VAT Directive (having regard in particular to Article 183 thereof), and with the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and proportionality?

               3.

               Must Article 183 of the VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that the principle of equivalence precludes a practice of a Member State pursuant to which, on the VAT not returned, the tax authority only pays interest at the central bank base (simple) rate if EU law has been infringed, whereas it pays interest equivalent to double the central bank base rate if there has been an infringement of national law?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Cases T-45/13 RENV and T-587/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Rose Vision v Commission (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Grant agreement concerning the FIRST, FutureNEM, sISI, 4NEM and SFERA projects — Deadline for providing the final financial audit report — Financial audits finding anomalies in the implementation of the projects — Suspension of payments — Confidentiality of financial audits — Eligibility of the costs declared — Non-contractual liability — Repayment of the sums advanced — Harm caused by listing in the early warning system)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Rose Vision v Commission
   (Cases T-45/13 RENV and T-587/15) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreement concerning the FIRST, FutureNEM, sISI, 4NEM and SFERA projects - Deadline for providing the final financial audit report - Financial audits finding anomalies in the implementation of the projects - Suspension of payments - Confidentiality of financial audits - Eligibility of the costs declared - Non-contractual liability - Repayment of the sums advanced - Harm caused by listing in the early warning system))
   (2018/C 142/50)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Rose Vision, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented by: J.J. Marín López, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer, in Case T-45/13 RENV and by J. Estrada de Solà, P. Rosa Plaza and S. Delaude, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer, in Case T-587/15)

      Re:

   In Case T 45/13 RENV, first, application under Article 272 TFEU for a declaration of breach of the contractual terms applicable the FutureNEM project, second, application under Article 272 TFEU for damages in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the Commission’s breach of those contractual terms, third, application under Article 268 TFEU for damages in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of its listing in the early warning system (EWS) and, fourth, application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decision on the listing of the applicant’s name in the EWS and, in Case T 587/15, first, in essence, application under Article 272 TFEU for a declaration of breach of the contractual terms applicable to the FIRST, FutureNEM, sISI, 4NEM and SFERA projects, second, application under Article 272 TFEU for a declaration that the applicant is not liable to the Commission in the amount claimed from it, for damages in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the breach of the contractual terms by the Commission and an order finding the Commission liable to pay the amounts owed in respect of its participation in those projects, third, application under Article 268 TFEU for damages in respect of the harm allegedly suffered as a consequence of listing the applicant’s name in the EWS and, fourth, application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 5449 final of 28 July 2015 on recovery in the total amount of EUR 535 613,20 owed by the applicant, plus interest.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-45/13 RENV and T-587/15 for the purpose of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders Rose Vision, SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including, in respect of Case T-45/13 RENV, those incurred in the original proceedings before the Court in Case T-45/13, in the proceedings on appeal in Case C-224/15 P and in the proceedings after referral back.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.


title: Case C-29/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v FOGASA, José David Sanchez Iglesias and Incatema, S.L.

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v FOGASA, José David Sanchez Iglesias and Incatema, S.L.
   (Case C-29/18)
   (2018/C 142/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A.

      Respondents: FOGASA, José David Sanchez Iglesias and Incatema, S.L.

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Must Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work contained in the Annex to Directive 1999/70 (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in respect of the same set of facts (the termination of a contract for services (contrata) between the employer and a third-party undertaking at the latter’s instigation), provides for a lower level of compensation for (i) termination of a fixed-term contract (contrato) for a specific task or service with a term of the same duration as that of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking than it does for (ii) termination of the permanent contracts of comparable workers under a collective redundancy that is justified on production-related grounds pertaining to the employer and arises from the termination of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking?

               (2)

               If the answer is in the affirmative, is the unequal treatment between workers on fixed-term contracts and comparable permanent workers as regards compensation for termination of contract in cases where termination is prompted by the same factual circumstances but based on different legal grounds to be considered to constitute discrimination of the type prohibited in Article 21 of the Charter, inasmuch as it is contrary to the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, which form part of the general principles of EU law?

      (1)  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 C-46/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen — Germany) — Hubertus John v Freie Hansestadt Bremen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Clause 5(1) — Measures aimed at preventing the misuse of fixed-term contracts — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age — National legislation authorising the postponement of the end of the contract of employment fixed at the normal retirement age simply because that the worker qualified for a retirement pension)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen — Germany) — Hubertus John v Freie Hansestadt Bremen
   (Case C-46/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Clause 5(1) - Measures aimed at preventing the misuse of fixed-term contracts - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age - National legislation authorising the postponement of the end of the contract of employment fixed at the normal retirement age simply because that the worker qualified for a retirement pension))
   (2018/C 142/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hubertus John

      Defendant: Freie Hansestadt Bremen

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 2(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to the extent that it makes the postponement of the date of termination of employment of workers who have reached the legal qualifying age for a retirement pension subject to the agreement of the employers given for a fixed term.

               2)

               Clause 5(1) of Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, in the annex 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 meaning that it does not preclude a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it permits the parties to a contract of employment, without additional requirements, indefinitely to postpone, by common agreement during the course of the employment relationship, including on more than one occasion if necessary, the agreed date of termination related to reaching the normal retirement age, simply because that worker, by reaching the normal retirement age, is entitled to a retirement pension.

      (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case C-30/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v José Ramón Fiuza Asorey and Incatema, S.L.

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v José Ramón Fiuza Asorey and Incatema, S.L.
   (Case C-30/18)
   (2018/C 142/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A.

      Respondents: José Ramón Fiuza Asorey and Incatema, S.L.

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Must Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work contained in the Annex to Directive 1999/70 (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in respect of the same set of facts (the termination of a contract for services (contrata) between the employer and a third-party undertaking at the latter’s instigation), provides for a lower level of compensation for (i) termination of a fixed-term contract (contrato) for a specific task or service with a term of the same duration as that of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking than it does for (ii) termination of the permanent contracts of comparable workers under a collective redundancy that is justified on production-related grounds pertaining to the employer and arises from the termination of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking?

               (2)

               If the answer is in the affirmative, is the unequal treatment between workers on fixed-term contracts and comparable permanent workers as regards compensation for termination of contract in cases where termination is prompted by the same factual circumstances but based on different legal grounds to be considered to constitute discrimination of the type prohibited in Article 21 of the Charter, inasmuch as it is contrary to the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, which form part of the general principles of EU law?

      (1)  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-292/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 — Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Public supply contracts — Tender procedure — Admissibility — Misuse of procedure — Conflict of interests — Duty of diligence — Loss of opportunity)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 — Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission
   (Case T-292/15) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Public supply contracts - Tender procedure - Admissibility - Misuse of procedure - Conflict of interests - Duty of diligence - Loss of opportunity))
   (2018/C 142/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vakakis kai Synergates — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE Meleton, formerly Vakakis International — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Erlbacher and E. Georgieva, and subsequently by E. Georgieva and L. Baumgart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 268 TFEU, seeking compensation in respect of the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of irregularities committed by the Commission in the context of the Tendering Procedure ‘Consolidation of the Food Safety System in Albania’ (EuropeAid/129820/C/SER/AL).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the European Union to pay compensation for the damage suffered by Vakakis kai Synergates — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE Meleton in relation to the loss of an opportunity to be awarded the contract ‘Consolidation of the Food Safety System in Albania’ (EuropeAid/129820/C/SER/AL) and for the costs and expenses incurred in participating in that call for tenders;

               2.

               Orders that the compensation referred to in point 1 of the present operative part be increased by default interest, starting from the date of delivery of the present judgment until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the parties to inform the Court, within three months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement;

               5.

               Orders that, in the absence of agreement, the parties shall transmit to the Court, within the same period, a statement of their views with supporting figures;

               6.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-38/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 19 January 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Massimo Gambino and Shpetim Hyka

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 19 January 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Massimo Gambino and Shpetim Hyka
   (Case C-38/18)
   (2018/C 142/34)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bari

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Massimo Gambino, Shpetim Hyka

      Question referred

   Must Articles 16, 18 and 20(b) of Directive 2012/29/EU (1) be interpreted as precluding the victim of a crime from having to give evidence again before the court sitting in a new composition when one of the parties to the proceedings, in accordance with Articles 511(2) and 525(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as consistently interpreted by the case-law of the Supreme Court of Cassation), does not consent to that court reading the written record of the oral evidence previously given by that victim, in accordance with the audi alteram partem rule, before a different bench in the same proceedings?

      (1)  Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (OJ 2012 L 315, p. 57).


title: Case T-127/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/66

         Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission
   (Case T-127/18)
   (2018/C 142/84)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Cortina (Oudenaarde, Belgium) and FLA Europe (Oudenaarde) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens and A. Willems, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible;

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU on account of absence of legal basis of the contested regulation and, in the alternative, infringement of the principle of institutional balance laid down in Article 13(2) TEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU for failure to take the necessary measures to implement the judgment of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) TFEU for adopting an act which goes further than is necessary to attain the objective being pursued.


title: Case T-133/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — IQ Group Holdings Berhad v EUIPO — Krinner Innovation (Lumiqs)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/66

         Action brought on 22 February 2018 — IQ Group Holdings Berhad v EUIPO — Krinner Innovation (Lumiqs)
   (Case T-133/18)
   (2018/C 142/85)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: IQ Group Holdings Berhad (Heckmondwike, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Carter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Krinner Innovation GmbH (Straßkirchen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of figurative mark Lumiqs — International registration designating the European Union No 1 220 053

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2017 in Case R 983/2017-1.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               allow the application to proceed to registration in respect of the contested goods as amended;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-134/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/67

         Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH)
   (Case T-134/18)
   (2018/C 142/86)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark BALLER’S PUNCH — Application for registration No 14 823 306

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2017 in Case R 998/2017-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 13 March 2017 in Opposition B002643172;

               —

               register the opposed mark for all goods covered by the application;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No. 2017/1001.


title: Case T-157/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Caprice Schuhproduktion v Commission

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/69

         Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Caprice Schuhproduktion v Commission
   (Case T-157/18)
   (2018/C 142/88)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Caprice Schuhproduktion GmbH & Co. KG (Pirmasens, Germany) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens and A. Willems, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible;

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. The pleas put forward are identical to those put forward in Case T-127/18, Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission.


title: Case C-560/17 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 2017 by Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-780/16: Mediaexpert v EUIPO

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/2

         Appeal brought on 22 September 2017 by Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-780/16: Mediaexpert v EUIPO
   (Case C-560/17 P)
   (2018/C 152/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. (represented by: J. Aftyka, radca prawny)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   By order of 13 March 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-130/18: Action brought on 27 February 2018 — adidas International Trading and Others/Commission

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/47

         Action brought on 27 February 2018 — adidas International Trading and Others/Commission
   (Case T-130/18)
   (2018/C 152/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: adidas International Trading BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and 27 Others (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not have the legal competence to adopt Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the reopening of the concluded footwear proceeding and the retroactive imposition of the expired anti-dumping duty by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232:

                           —

                           lacks legal basis, is based on a manifest error in the application of Article 266 TFEU and of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036 (2) and infringes Article 9(4) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036;

                           —

                           is inconsistent with the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and non-retroactivity as far as the Applicants are concerned; and

                           —

                           is based on a misapplication of Article 266 TFEU and a misuse of powers by the Commission and infringes Article 5(4) TEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the retroactive imposition of the anti-dumping duty on the Applicants’ suppliers preventing repayment to the Applicants violates the principle of non-discrimination.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission misused its power in the assessment of the market economy and individual treatment claims of the Applicants’ suppliers to impose a retroactive anti-dumping duty and violated the principle of non-discrimination.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the assessment with regard to the companies listed in Annexes III and VI of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 by the Commission and ordering the rejection of the anti-dumping duty reimbursement requests concerning imports from those companies is based on a manifest error of assessment, misapplication of Article 266 TFEU and is in breach of the obligation of due diligence and proper administration.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30).

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).


title: Case T-131/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Deichmann/Commission

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/48

         Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Deichmann/Commission
   (Case T-131/18)
   (2018/C 152/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens, A. Willems and C. Zimmermann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible;

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by proceeding without a valid legal basis, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 (1) violates the principle of conferral under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU and, in any event, the principle of institutional balance under Article 13(2) TEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, C&J Clark International, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Article 266 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear ‘which took place during the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (2) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 (3),’ Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036 (4), and the principle of legal certainty (non-retroactivity).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty without conducting a fresh Union interest assessment, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036; in any event, it would have been manifestly erroneous to conclude that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty was in the Union interest.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that by adopting an act that exceeds what is necessary to achieve its objective, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Articles 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2009 L 352, p. 1).

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).


title: Case T-132/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Roland/Commission

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/49

         Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Roland/Commission
   (Case T-132/18)
   (2018/C 152/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Roland SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: S. De Knop, A. Willems and C. Zimmermann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible;

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by proceeding without a valid legal basis, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 (1) violates the principle of conferral under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU and, in any event, the principle of institutional balance under Article 13(2) TEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, C&J Clark International, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Article 266 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear ‘which took place during the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (2) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 (3),’ Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036 (4), and the principle of legal certainty (non-retroactivity).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty without conducting a fresh Union interest assessment, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036; in any event, it would have been manifestly erroneous to conclude that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty was in the Union interest.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that by adopting an act that exceeds what is necessary to achieve its objective, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Articles 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2009 L 352, p. 1).

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).


title: Case T-263/17: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — SD v EIGE (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Fixed-term contracts — Decision not to renew — Request for renewal having the same purpose as a complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/36

         Order of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — SD v EIGE
   (Case T-263/17) (1)

   ((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contracts - Decision not to renew - Request for renewal having the same purpose as a complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 152/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: SD (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (represented by: V. Langbakk, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the implied decision of EIGE dated 26 August 2016 rejecting the Applicant’s request dated 26 April 2016 for a second renewal of his contract of employment and, where necessary, annulment of the decision of EIGE of 20 January 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 3 October 2016 against the implied decision of 26 August 2016 and, secondly, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               SD is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE).

      (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case C-85/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea (Romania) lodged on 8 February 2018 — CV v DU

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea (Romania) lodged on 8 February 2018 — CV v DU
   (Case C-85/18)
   (2018/C 152/15)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Oradea

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CV

      Respondent: DU

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the concept of habitual residence of the child, within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 (1), to be interpreted as meaning that such habitual residence corresponds to the place where the child has demonstrated some degree of integration into the social and family environment, irrespective of the fact that a ruling has been made in another Member State, after the child moved with his father to the territory of the State, where the minor has integrated into that social and family environment? If that is the case, should Article 13 of Regulation No 2201/2003, which determines jurisdiction based on the child’s presence, be applied?

               2.

               Is the fact that the minor has the nationality of the Member State in which he lives with his father, in circumstances where his parents have Romanian nationality only, relevant for the purpose of determining habitual residence?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).


title: Case T-507/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Poland v Commission (EAGF — Expenditure excluded from financing — Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, Directive 2002/55/EC, Regulations (EC) No 1432/2003, (EC) No 1433/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 885/2006, (EC) No 1182/2007, (EC) No 1234/2007, (EC) No 1580/2007 and (EU) No 1306/2013 — Expenditure effected by Poland — Risk to EAGF — On-the-spot checks — Recognition criteria of a producer organisation — Discrepancies between language versions — Financial correction)

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-507/15) (1)

   ((EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, Directive 2002/55/EC, Regulations (EC) No 1432/2003, (EC) No 1433/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 885/2006, (EC) No 1182/2007, (EC) No 1234/2007, (EC) No 1580/2007 and (EU) No 1306/2013 - Expenditure effected by Poland - Risk to EAGF - On-the-spot checks - Recognition criteria of a producer organisation - Discrepancies between language versions - Financial correction))
   (2018/C 152/29)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, K. Straś, M. Pawlicka and B. Paziewska, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Stobiecka Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case T-84/18: Action brought on 15 February 2018 — VG v Commission

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/37

         Action brought on 15 February 2018 — VG v Commission
   (Case T-84/18)
   (2018/C 152/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: VG (represented by: G. Pandey and V. Villante, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulations invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings under Article 270 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               annul, first, the decision of 30 October 2017 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged on 31 July 2017;

               —

               annul, second, the EPSO decision of 19 April 2017 rejecting her request for review of the decision of EPSO/the Selection Board not to admit her to the next phase of the competition;

               —

               annul, third, the decision of 6 February 2017 at the online EPSO account not to include the applicant in the draft list of candidates selected for the purposes of the EPSO/AD/323/16 competition;

               —

               annul, fourth, the notice of competition EPSO/AD/323/16, published on 26 May 2016; (1)

               —

               annul, finally, in its entirety, the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition;

               —

               award damages to the applicant amounting to 50 000 euros;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by EPSO/the Selection Board in the evaluation of the applicant’s working experience and, further, the infringement of Annex III to the notice of competition at issue detailing the required work experience.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s right to be heard, and, further, infringement of the duty to state reasons and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article s 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1/58, (2) breach of Article s 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to those Regulations and, further, breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

      (1)  OJ 2016 C 187, p. A/1.

      (2)  Regulation No. 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958 (I), p. 59).


title: Case T-141/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Deichmann-Shoes UK/Commission

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/50

         Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Deichmann-Shoes UK/Commission
   (Case T-141/18)
   (2018/C 152/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deichmann-Shoes UK Ltd (Leicestershire, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens, A. Willems and C. Zimmermann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible;

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by proceeding without a valid legal basis, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 (1) violates the principle of conferral under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU and, in any event, the principle of institutional balance under Article 13(2) TEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C&J Clark International, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Article 266 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear ‘which took place during the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (2) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 (3),’ Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036 (4), and the principle of legal certainty (non-retroactivity).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty without conducting a fresh Union interest assessment, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036; in any event, it would have been manifestly erroneous to conclude that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty was in the Union interest.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that by adopting an act that exceeds what is necessary to achieve its objective, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Articles 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2009 L 352, p. 1).

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).


title: Case T-85/18: Action brought on 15 February 2018 — Batchelor v Commission

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/38

         Action brought on 15 February 2018 — Batchelor v Commission
   (Case T-85/18)
   (2018/C 152/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Edward William Batchelor (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Hoorelbeke, lawyer, and M. Healy, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 8430 final of 5 December 2017, refusing access to a document containing a desk officer’s ethics declaration filed in the Human Resource Management information system Sysper2 of the European Commission and to other documents falling within the scope of the initial access request;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 15(3) TFEU, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Articles 2(1) and 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001, (1) read in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, (2) by refusing to grant full or partial access to the ethics declaration.

                           —

                           In the first part of the first plea in law, the applicant demonstrates that the Commission did not examine nor demonstrate that the disclosure of the ethics declaration would specifically and actually undermine the interest protected by Article 4(1)(b) Regulation 1049/2001. Therefore, the Commission did not discharge its legal burden and erred in law by refusing access, at least in part, to the ethics declaration.

                           —

                           In the second part of the first plea in law, the applicant shows that the Commission erred in the application of Article 4 (1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001, read in conjunction with Article 8 (b) Regulation 45/2001, when finding that the applicant had not properly demonstrated that disclosure of the ethics declaration was necessary.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 15 (3) TFEU, and Article 2 (1) of Regulation 1049/2001, by refusing to grant access to further documents falling within the scope of the initial access request.

                           —

                           In the second plea in law, the applicant sets out the relevant and consistent evidence underpinning its belief that more documents which fall within the scope of its initial access request exist, than the seventy-one documents identified by the Commission. By refusing access to those further documents, the Commission violated Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 2(1) of Regulation 1049/2001.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principles of good administration, in particular the duty of care.

                           —

                           In the third plea in law, the applicant demonstrates that the Commission infringed its duty of care under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by failing to exercise the requisite due diligence when it determined that there are no further documents falling within the scope of the initial access request. In support of this plea, the applicant shows that there is no explanation how the Commission has ensured that no further documents exist, as no information is provided on the search methods applied by the Commission.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons as laid down in Article 296(2) TFEU.

                           —

                           In the first part of the fourth plea in law, the applicant demonstrates that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU by failing to explain why disclosure of the ethics declaration would actually and specifically undermine the interest protected by Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001, nor does it set out why it is assumed that such disclosure would jeopardise the legitimate interest of the data subject in accordance with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001.

                           —

                           In the second part of the fourth plea in law, the applicant shows that the contested decision does not contain any reasoning why it did not identify any additional documents falling within the scope of the initial access request despite the applicant's submissions in his confirmatory application. Therefore also this part of the contested decision is based on insufficient reasoning.

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

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Joined Cases T-533/15 and T-264/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2018 — Kim and Others v Council and Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against North Korea with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — List of persons and entities to which the freezing of funds and economic resources applies — Inclusion of the applicants’ names — Proof that inclusion on the list is well founded — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2018 — Kim and Others v Council and Commission
   (Joined Cases T-533/15 and T-264/16) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against North Korea with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - List of persons and entities to which the freezing of funds and economic resources applies - Inclusion of the applicants’ names - Proof that inclusion on the list is well founded - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2018/C 152/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants in Case T-533/15: Il-Su Kim (Pyongyang, North Korea) and the five other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: M. Lester QC, S. Midwinter QC, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, Solicitors)

      Applicant in Case T-264/16: Korea National Insurance Corporation (Pyongyang) (represented by: M. Lester, S. Midwinter, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented initially by A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and A. Vitro, and subsequently by A. Vitro and F. Naert, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented, in Case T-533/15, by L. Havas, S. Bartelt and D. Gauci, acting as Agents, and, in Case T-264/16, by L. Havas and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents, and subsequently, in Case T-533/15, by L. Havas and D. Gauci, acting as Agents, and, in Case T-264/16, by L. Havas, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendants in Case T-533/15: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by V. Kaye, subsequently by S. Brandon, then by S. Brandon and C. Crane, and finally by S. Brandon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION, in Case T-533/15, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1066 of 2 July 2015 amending Decision 2013/183/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2015 L 174, p. 25), of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1062 of 2 July 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2015 L 174, p. 16), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/475 of 31 March 2016 amending Decision 2013/183/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2016 L 85, p. 34), of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/659 of 27 April 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2016 L 114, p. 9), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 of 27 May 2016 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and repealing Decision 2013/183/CFSP (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 79), and of any related Council implementing regulations, in so far as those acts concern the applicants, and, in Case T-264/16, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision 2016/475, of Implementing Regulation 2016/659, of Decision 2016/849 and of any related Council implementing regulations, in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               In Case T-533/15, orders Mr Kim Il-Su and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

               3.

               In Case T-264/16, orders Korea National Insurance Corporation to pay the costs;

               4.

               In Case T-533/15, orders the United Kingdom to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: Case T-100/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Wehrheim v ECB

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/40

         Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Wehrheim v ECB
   (Case T-100/18)
   (2018/C 152/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christine Wehrheim (Offenbach, Germany) (represented by: N. De Montigny, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul:

                           —

                           the decision to reject the claim for compensation for the loss suffered as a result of having withdrawn her [expatriation allowance] (introduced on 10 May 2017) and dating from 3 July 2017;

                           —

                           in so far as necessary, the express decision rejecting her appeal (brought on 3 September 2017) against that decision, which dates from 21 December 2017;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay compensation claimed by the applicant in her claims, as follows:

                           —

                           the difference of remuneration for as long as she will employed within the institution under her permanent staff contract, in the amount of EUR 700,53 per month from the month of April 2017;

                           —

                           relocation costs in addition to the EUR 1 079,10 already accepted, namely an additional EUR 1 000;

                           —

                           in respect of psychological harm suffered, the mount of EUR 2 000;

                           —

                           together with interest at the statutory rate until full payment;

               3.

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the defendant administration has failed to fulfil its obligations regarding good administration and assistance by failing to comply with its duty to have regard for the welfare of staff and by creating an expectation which is clearly untenable with regard to the applicant and which consists of granting an expatriation allowance although she did not meet, initially, the conditions required by the Staff Regulations to do so. That fault, it is claimed, caused damage which has a direct causal link with the failure by the institution to fulfil its obligations.


title: Case T-142/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Buffalo — Boots/Commission

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/52

         Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Buffalo — Boots/Commission
   (Case T-142/18)
   (2018/C 152/61)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Buffalo — Boots GmbH (Hochheim am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. De Knop, A. Willems and C. Zimmermann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible;

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by proceeding without a valid legal basis, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 (1) violates the principle of conferral under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU and, in any event, the principle of institutional balance under Article 13(2) TEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C&J Clark International, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Article 266 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear ‘which took place during the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (2) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 (3),’ Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036 (4), and the principle of legal certainty (non-retroactivity).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty without conducting a fresh Union interest assessment, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036; in any event, it would have been manifestly erroneous to conclude that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty was in the Union interest.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that by adopting an act that exceeds what is necessary to achieve its objective, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Articles 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People's Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2009 L 352, p. 1).

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).


title: Case C-32/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 18 January 2018 — Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse v Michael Moser

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 18 January 2018 — Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse v Michael Moser
   (Case C-32/18)
   (2018/C 152/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

      Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Michael Moser

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the second sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Regulation No 883/2004) (1) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State having secondary competence (Austria) must pay, as a family benefit, to a parent resident and employed in a Member State having primary competence in accordance with Article 68(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 883/2004 (Germany) the difference between the ‘Elterngeld’ (parental allowance) paid in the Member State having primary competence and the income-dependent ‘Kinderbetreuungsgeld’ (childcare allowance) in the other Member State, in the case where both parents live with their common children in the Member State having primary competence and the second parent alone is employed as a cross-border worker in the Member State having secondary competence?

         In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               Must the income-dependent ‘Kinderbetreuungsgeld’ be calculated by reference to the income actually earned in the Member State of employment (Germany) or by reference to the income which could hypothetically be earned from a comparable gainful activity in the Member State having secondary competence (Austria)?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1.


title: Case T-152/18: Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA)

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/53

         Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA)
   (Case T-152/18)
   (2018/C 152/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sona Nutrition Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solgar Holdings, Inc. (Ronkonkoma, New York, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in colours purple, light brown, beige, dark brown and golden brown, SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA — Application for registration No 13 781 331

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 in Case R 1319/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case C-94/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 12 February 2018 — Nalini Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice and Equality

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 12 February 2018 — Nalini Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice and Equality
   (Case C-94/18)
   (2018/C 152/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court (Ireland)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nalini Chenchooliah

      Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where the spouse of an EU citizen who has exercised free movement rights under Article 6 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) has been refused a right of residence under Article 7 on the basis that the EU citizen in question was not, or was no longer, exercising EU Treaty Rights in the host Member State concerned, and where it is proposed that the spouse should be expelled from that Member State, must that expulsion be pursuant to and in compliance with the provisions of the Directive, or does it fall within the competence of the national law of the Member State?

               2.

               If the answer to the above question is that the expulsion must be made pursuant to the provisions of the Directive, must the expulsion be made pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Chapter VI of the Directive, and particularly Articles 27 and 28 thereof, or may the Member State, in such circumstances, rely on other provisions of the Directive, in particular Articles 14 and 15 thereof?

      (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 T-33/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2018 — TestBioTech v Commission (Environment — Genetically modified products — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 — Genetically modified soybeans MON 87769, MON 87705 and 305423 — Rejection of an application for internal review of market authorisation decisions — Concept of ‘environmental law’ — Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006)

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2018 — TestBioTech v Commission
   (Case T-33/16) (1)

   ((Environment - Genetically modified products - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Genetically modified soybeans MON 87769, MON 87705 and 305423 - Rejection of an application for internal review of market authorisation decisions - Concept of ‘environmental law’ - Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006))
   (2018/C 152/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Stein, Solicitor, K. Smith QC, and J. Stevenson, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Tomkin, L. Pignataro-Nolin and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Monsanto Europe (Antwerp, Belgium) and Monsanto Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Pittie, lawyer), Pioneer Overseas Corp. (Johnston, Iowa, United States) and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Johnston) (represented by: G. Forwood, lawyer, J. Killick, Barrister, and S. Nordin, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the letter from the Commissioner for Health and Food Safety of 16 November 2015 rejecting an application for internal review, based on Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13), of implementing decisions authorising the placing on the market of the genetically modified soybeans MON 87769, MON 87705 and 305423.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the letter of the Commissioner for Health and Food Safety of 16 November 2015, bearing the reference Ares(2015) 5145741, concerning a request for internal review, based on Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, of the implementing decisions authorising the placing on the market of the genetically modified soybeans MON 87769, MON 87705 and 305423.

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by TestBioTech eV.

               3.

               Orders Monsanto Europe, Monsanto Company, Pioneer Overseas Corp. and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Case T-153/18: Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA)

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/54

         Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA)
   (Case T-153/18)
   (2018/C 152/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sona Nutrition Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solgar Holdings, Inc. (Ronkonkoma, New York, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in colours red, light brown, beige, dark brown and golden brown, SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA — Application for registration No 13 781 299

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 in Case R 1321/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.