title: Case C-246/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 March 2019 — State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v B, C, D, F.C.

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/9

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 March 2019 — State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v B, C, D, F.C.
      (Case C-246/19)
      (2019/C 213/09)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour administrative

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

         Respondents: B, C, D, F.C.

         Other party: A

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, whether or not read in conjunction with Article 47 of that Charter, be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State which, in the context of the procedure for the exchange of information on request established in particular with a view to the implementation of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/99/EEC, (1) excludes any remedy, in particular a judicial remedy, on the part of the taxpayer concerned by the investigation in the requesting Member State and a third party to challenge a decision by which the competent authority of that Member State requires a holder of information to communicate information to it for the purposes of implementing a request for exchange of information received from another Member State?

                  2.

                  If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 1(1) and Article 5 of Directive 2011/16 be interpreted, if necessary taking account of the evolving nature of the interpretation of Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, as meaning that a request for exchange of information, and a consequent information order from the competent authority of the requested Member State, satisfy the condition that there is not a manifest lack of foreseeable relevance where the requesting Member State states the identity of the taxpayer concerned, the period covered by the investigation in the requesting Member State and the identity of the holder of the information in question, while seeking information concerning bank accounts and financial assets which are unspecified but which are defined by criteria concerning, first, the fact that they are owned by an identified holder of information, secondly, their applicability to the tax years covered by the investigation by the authorities in the requesting State and, thirdly, their relationship with the identified taxpayer concerned?

         (1)  OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1.


title: Case C-248/19: Action brought on 20 March 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/10

      Action brought on 20 March 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
      (Case C-248/19)
      (2019/C 213/10)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Τriantaphyllou and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Republic of Cyprus.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Declare that the Republic of Cyprus, by failing to:

                              —

                              provide a collecting system for 31 agglomerations (Αradippou, Ipsonas, Dali, Varoklini, Deryneia, Sotira, Xylophagou, Pervolia, Colosseo, Poli Chrysochous, Livadia, Dromolaxia, Pera Chorio-Nisou, Liopetri, Avgorou, Paliometokhos, Kiti, Frenaros, Ormidia, Kokkinotrimithia, Trachoni, Episkopi, Xylotympou, Pano Pelemidia, Pyla, Lympia, Parekklissia, Kakopetria, Achna, Meneu and Pyrgos), as required by Article 3 of and by Annex I(A) to the Directive;

                              —

                              ensure for those same agglomerations that the waste water which enters the collecting systems is subject to secondary or equivalent treatment before discharge, as required by Articles 4, 10 and 15 of and by Annexes I.B and I.D to the Directive,
                              failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4, 10, 15 and Annex I to Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste-water treatment.

                  —

                  order the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  1.

                  In the absence of a comprehensive and operational collecting system, the Republic of Cyprus failed to observe the time limit of 31.12.2012 of Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment (as extended by the Treaty of Accession of Cyprus to the European Union) for four agglomerations with populations above 10 000 inhabitants with respect to collection (Article 2) and, consequently, the secondary treatment of waste water (Article 4) and the infrastructure and monitoring of the latter (Articles 10 and 15).

                  2.

                  In the absence of a comprehensive and operational collecting system, the Republic of Cyprus failed to observe the time limit of 31.12.2012 of Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment (as extended by the Treaty of Accession of Cyprus to the European Union) for agglomerations with a population of 2 000-10 000 inhabitants with respect to collection (Article 2) and, consequently, the secondary treatment of waste water (Article 4) and the infrastructure and monitoring of the latter (Articles 10 and 15).

         (1)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment.


title: Case C-256/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 26 March 2019 — S.A.D. Maler und Anstreicher OG

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/11

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 26 March 2019 — S.A.D. Maler und Anstreicher OG
      (Case C-256/19)
      (2019/C 213/11)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgericht Wien

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: S.A.D. Maler und Anstreicher OG

         Respondent authority: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

         Other party to the proceedings: Bauarbeiter Urlaubs und Abfertigungskasse

         Questions referred

                  1)

                  Are the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter and the principle of effectiveness at least with regard to a national legal system which, for the purpose of safeguarding the independence and impartiality of the courts in its constitution, establishes a fundamental right to the allocation of cases to judges of cases according to a fixed allocation of cases determined in advance according to general rules to be interpreted as meaning that the legislature must ensure that this fundamental guarantee is effective and not merely theoretical?

                              (1)(a)

                              Supplementary question: If Question (1) is answered in the negative:
                              Do the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter and the principle of effectiveness in a national legal system which has enshrined the fundamental right of the fixed allocation of cases in the constitution impose any obligations to safeguard that right on the legislature and, if so, which?

                              (1)(b)

                              Supplementary questions: If Question (1) is answered in the affirmative:

                                          (1)(b)- (1)

                                          Do the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter and the principle of effectiveness at least with regard to a national legal system which has enshrined the fundamental right of the fixed allocation of cases in the constitution demand non-compliance with an instruction or action concerning the allocation of files to a judge by a body with no jurisdiction under law regarding that instruction or action?

                                          (1)(b)- (2)

                                          Do the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter and the principle of effectiveness at least with regard to a national legal system which has enshrined the fundamental right of the fixed allocation of cases in the constitution demand that, under intra-court rules of procedure, a body dealing with the allocation of court files may be granted only a narrow scope of discretion, if any, determined in advance, with regard to the allocation decision?

                  2)

                  Are the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter and the principle of effectiveness at least with regard to a national legal system which, for the purpose of safeguarding the independence and impartiality of the courts in its constitution, establishes a fundamental right to the allocation of cases to judges according to a fixed allocation of cases determined in advance according to general rules to be interpreted as meaning that a judge who has doubts (i) concerning the legality of an intra-court allocation of cases or (ii) concerning the legality of an intra-court decision implementing an intra-court allocation of cases and directly affecting the activity of that judge (in particular an allocation of cases decision) must, with regard to those doubts, be able to lodge an appeal (in particular at no financial cost to that judge) at a different court with full powers to review the legality of the act considered to be unlawful?
                  If not: Are there any other provisions to be guaranteed by the legislature which ensure that a judge is able to attain legal compliance with the statutory provisions concerning him in respect of the observance of the statutory (in particular intra-court) provisions regarding the allocation of cases?

                  3)

                  Are the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter and the principle of effectiveness at least with regard to a national legal system which, for the purpose of safeguarding the independence and impartiality of the courts in its constitution, establishes a fundamental right to the allocation of cases to judges according to a fixed allocation of cases determined in advance according to general rules to be interpreted as meaning that a party to a court case which has doubts concerning (i) the legality of a provision of the intra-court allocation of cases that is prejudicial to the settlement of its case or (ii) the legality of the allocation of that case to a certain judge must, before the issuing of the court decision, with regard to those doubts, be able to lodge an appeal (which does not place an excessive financial burden on that party) at a different court with full powers to review the legality of the legal act considered to be unlawful?
                  If not: Are there any other provisions to be guaranteed by the legislature which ensure that a party, before the issuing of the court decision, is able to attain legal compliance with its fundamental right to observance of the ‘lawful judge’ principle?

                  4)

                  Are the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter and the principle of effectiveness at least with regard to a national legal system which, for the purpose of safeguarding the independence and impartiality of the courts in its constitution, establishes a fundamental right to the allocation of cases to judges according to a fixed allocation of cases determined in advance according to general rules to be interpreted as meaning that the intra-court allocation of cases and the intra-court file registration are organised in such a transparent and comprehensible manner that the judge or a party is able, without particular effort, to check that the specific allocation of files to a judge or a certain panel of judges corresponds to the provisions of the intra-court allocation of cases?
                  If not: Are there any other provisions to be guaranteed by the legislature which ensure that a judge or a party is in a position to be able to obtain knowledge of the legality of a certain allocation of court cases?

                  5)

                  Are the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter and the principle of effectiveness at least with regard to a national legal system which, for the purpose of safeguarding the independence and impartiality of the courts in its constitution, establishes a fundamental right to the allocation of cases to judges according to a fixed allocation of cases determined in advance according to general rules to be interpreted as meaning that the parties to a case and the judge in a court case must be able, without particular action on their part, to acquaint themselves with the content of the case allocation rules and that the parties to a case and the judge must in this way be able to check the legality of the allocation of the case to a judge or certain panel of judges?
                  If not: Are there any other provisions to be guaranteed by the legislature which ensure that a judge or a party is in a position to be able to obtain knowledge of the legality of a certain allocation of court cases?

                  6)

                  What obligations to act are incumbent upon a judge, in view of his obligation under EU law to observe the procedural provisions under EU law, who, by virtue of an (out-of-court or intra-court) legal act which cannot be challenged, is obliged to perform an act which is contrary to EU law and infringes party rights?


title: Case C-284/19 P: Appeal brought on 3 April 2019 by Andrew Clarke against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2019 in Case T-731/18: Clarke v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/13

      Appeal brought on 3 April 2019 by Andrew Clarke against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2019 in Case T-731/18: Clarke v Commission
      (Case C-284/19 P)
      (2019/C 213/12)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Andrew Clarke (represented by: E. Lock, Solicitor)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  remit the application back to the General Court for its consideration taking account of the Court of Justice's findings;

                  —

                  order that by no later than 12 April 2019 (or such other date to which the Article 50 TFEU period may be extended)

                              a)

                              the General Court addresses that application according to a timetable and a manner such that it is able to give its final judgment thereon;

                              b)

                              as an interim measure, the Commission delivers to the United Kingdom a reasoned opinion setting out its position on the infringements of Union law that can be inferred from its letter to the appellant of 25 October 2018;

                  —

                  order that the parties have liberty to apply to the General Court for further directions as appropriate;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the appellant's costs.

         Plea in law and main arguments

      In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on one plea in law:
      The General Court in its order dated 25 March 2019 misconstrued what the appellant sought by his application, it has wrongly determined that he has no standing to make his application and that it has no jurisdiction to make the order sought.
      The appellant has not requested that the Commission bring infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom (‘UK’). Annulments are requested of two decisions of the Commission, one of which has been erroneously identified by the General Court. In respect thereof, the case law relied upon by the Court either does not support the proposition for which it is cited or is irrelevant. The appellant is entitled to seek annulment of those decisions in so far as they were addressed to him and/or are of direct and individual concern to him. Furthermore, in the alternative, the appellant is entitled to seek an order under Article 265 of TFEU on the basis that the Commission has failed to act in not delivering a reasoned opinion to the UK pursuant to a mandatory obligation to do so under the first part of Article 258 of TFUE given its implicit acceptance by the second of those decisions in moving to consider its discretion under the second part of Article 258 that the UK was infringing Union law. Thus is on the basis that the reasoned opinion should also be addressed to the appellant and/or would be of direct and individual concern to him. The appellant is further entitled to seek an injunctive order and interim measures as regards his application in terms of Article 265 of TFUE.


title: Case C-290/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave (Slovakia) lodged on 9 April 2019 — RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/14

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave (Slovakia) lodged on 9 April 2019 — RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
      (Case C-290/19)
      (2019/C 213/13)
      Language of the case: Slovak

         Referring court

      Krajský súd v Trnave

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: RN

         Defendant: Home Credit Slovakia a.s.

         Question referred

      Is Article 10[(2)](g) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer credit agreement satisfies the requirement laid down in that provision if the annual percentage rate of charge is indicated in the agreement, not as a specific percentage, but as a range between two figures (from — to)?

         (1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.


title: Case C-298/19: Action brought on 11 April 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/15

      Action brought on 11 April 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
      (Case C-298/19)
      (2019/C 213/14)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinos’s and E. Emanuele, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Hellenic Republic

         Form of order sought

      The Commission claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Declare that the Hellenic Republic, by failing to take all measures required for the implementation of the judgment delivered by the Court on 23 April 2015, in Case C-149/14, Rollison v Greece, (1) has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

                  —

                  Order the Hellenic Republic to pay a proposed penalty payment of EUR 23 753.25 for each day of delay in the implementation of the judgment delivered in Case C-149/14, from the date when the judgment in this case is delivered until the date when the judgment that was delivered in C-149/14 has been implemented;

                  —

                  order the Hellenic Republic to pay a daily lump sum amounting to EUR 2 639.25 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in Case C-149/14 until the date when the judgment in the present case is delivered or the date when the judgment in C-149/14 is implemented, if earlier, and provided that the above amount does not exceed it, to order payment of a minimum lump sum of EUR 1 310 000,

                  —

                  order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  1.

                  On the basis of Article 260(1) TFEU, the Hellenic Republic is obliged to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-149/14. However, the Hellenic Republic failed to take all the necessary measures to comply with the operative part of that judgment. In particular, the Hellenic Republic failed to undertake a programme of work in relation to vulnerable areas characterised by the presence of bodies of surface water or groundwater which are affected by pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Consequently, the Commission decided to bring an action before the Court.

                  2.

                  By this action, the Commission asks the Court to impose on the Hellenic Republic a lump sum amounting to EUR 2 639.25 per day and a penalty payment of EUR 23 753.25 per day. The amounts of the lump sum and the penalty payment have been calculated taking into account the seriousness and duration of the infringement and the deterrent effect, based on that Member State’s ability to pay.

         (1)  1EU:C:2015:264.


title: Case C-306/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2019 — Milis Energy SpA v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/18

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2019 — Milis Energy SpA v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE
      (Case C-306/19)
      (2019/C 213/17)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Milis Energy SpA

         Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

         Question referred

      Does EU law preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as that set out in Article 26(2) and (3) of Decree-Law No 91/2014, as converted into law by Law No 116/2014, which significantly reduces or delays the payment of incentives already granted by law and defined on the basis of ad hoc agreements concluded by undertakings generating electrical energy by means of photovoltaic conversion with Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA, a public company responsible for that process? In particular, is such a provision of national law compatible with the general principles of EU law relating to legitimate expectations, legal certainty, sincere cooperation and effectiveness, with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with Directive 2009/28/EC (1) and the rules governing support schemes laid down therein, and with Article 216(2) TFEU, in particular in relation to the Energy Charter Treaty?

         (1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).


title: Case C-337/19 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 February 2019 in Joined Cases T-131/16 and T-263/16: Belgium and Magnetrol International v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/20

      Appeal brought on 24 April 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 February 2019 in Joined Cases T-131/16 and T-263/16: Belgium and Magnetrol International v Commission
      (Case C-337/19 P)
      (2019/C 213/19)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P.J. Loewenthal, F. Tomat, Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Belgium, Magnetrol International, Ireland

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 14 February 2019 in Joined Cases T-131/16 and T-263/16 Belgium and Magnetrol International v. Commission EU:T:2019:91 insofar as it holds that Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 (1) of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium erroneously classified the ‘excess profit’ system as a scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (2);

                  —

                  refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration of the pleas not already assessed, and

                  —

                  reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The appellant submits that the General Court committed an error of law by concluding that it was wrong to classify the ‘excess profit’ tax ruling practice, implemented by Belgium from 2004-14, as a scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589.
      The General Court misinterpreted the first condition of Article 1(d) and distorted recitals (94) to (110) of the contested decision by concluding that the Commission considered only the legislative acts listed in recital (99) as constituting the basis of the ‘excess profit’ scheme.
      The General Court misinterpreted the second condition of Article 1(d) and distorted recitals (100) to (108) of the contested decision by concluding that the grant of the ‘excess profit’ exemption necessitated the adoption of further implementing measures.
      The General Court misinterpreted the third condition of Article 1(d) and distorted recitals (66), (102), (103), (109), (139) and (140) of the contested decision by concluding that further implementing measures were necessary to define the beneficiaries of the ‘excess profit’ exemption.
      Finally, the General Court disregarded the ratio legis of Article 1(d) by concluding that the Commission erroneously classified the ‘excess profit’ system as a scheme within the meaning of that provision.

         (1)  OJ 2016, L 260, p. 61.

         (2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).


title: Case C-349/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2019 by Almashreq Investment Fund against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2019 in Case T-415/16 Almashreq Investment Find v Council

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/22

      Appeal brought on 29 April 2019 by Almashreq Investment Fund against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2019 in Case T-415/16 Almashreq Investment Find v Council
      (Case C-349/19 P)
      (2019/C 213/21)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Almashreq Investment Fund (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

         Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The appellant submits that the Court should:

                  —

                  Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 28 February 2019 (T-415/16);

            And, giving judgment itself,

                  —

                  Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;

                  —

                  Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures.
      The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law and distortion of the facts in that the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of its action for annulment to demonstrate that it did not support the Syrian regime.
      The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.

         (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125).


title: Case C-350/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2019 by Souruh SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2019 in Case T-440/16 Souruh v Council

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/23

      Appeal brought on 29 April 2019 by Souruh SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2019 in Case T-440/16 Souruh v Council
      (Case C-350/19 P)
      (2019/C 213/22)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Souruh SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

         Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The appellant submits that the Court should:

                  —

                  Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 28 February 2019 (T-440/16);

            And, giving judgment itself,

                  —

                  Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;

                  —

                  Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures.
      The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law and distortion of the facts in that the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of its action for annulment to demonstrate that it did not support the Syrian regime.
      The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.

         (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125).


title: Case C-371/19: Action brought on 10 May 2019 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/24

      Action brought on 10 May 2019 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-371/19)
      (2019/C 213/23)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Jokubauskaitė and R. Pethke, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 170 and 171 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and under Article 5 of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (2) by systematically refusing to request the information that is missing in an application for a VAT refund and, instead, immediately refusing the refund applications in such cases if such information can be provided only after the 30 September deadline.

                  —

                  order Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of its action, the European Commission relies on the following pleas in law:

                  1.

                  First plea in law — Infringement of the principle of neutrality of VAT
                  The Federal Republic of Germany infringed the principle of neutrality of VAT established in Articles 170 and 171 of Directive 2006/112 and Article 5 of Directive 2008/9, according to which, upon the acquisition of goods and upon the receipt of services, a settlement of the VAT paid at the preceding stage is to occur to the benefit of the taxable person.
                  The principle of neutrality of turnover tax requires that an entitlement to a refund is to be granted where the substantive conditions for that entitlement are fulfilled. Where there are doubts whether the substantive conditions for a refund are fulfilled, refund applications under Article 5 in combination with the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 21 of Directive 2008/9 are to be refused only where requests for information from the Member State of refund under Article 20 of that directive are unsuccessful.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law — Infringement of the principle of the practical effectiveness of entitlements to VAT refunds
                  The interpretation of Article 20(1) of Directive 2008/9 adopted by the Republic of Germany hinders the effective exercise of the entitlement to a VAT refund by taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund. In this regard, the administrative practice of the German tax authorities undermines the rights of those taxable persons under Articles 170 and 171 of Directive 2006/112 and Article 5 of Directive 2008/9.
                  In order to do justice to the neutrality principle to the greatest extent possible, the practical effectiveness of Directives 2006/112 and 2008/9 requires that entitlements to VAT refunds existing in substantive terms be enforced. The legislation intended full settlement of the VAT paid at the preceding stage upon the acquisition of goods and upon the receipt of services and also thus sought to create broadly equal competition conditions for all taxable persons, including in cases of cross-border turnover. To that end, all the reasonable administrative measures provided for in the directive enabling the enforcement of entitlements to VAT refunds were to be taken.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law — Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  The Federal Republic of Germany’s systematic refusal to request further information and supporting documentation under Article 20(1) of Directive 2008/9 infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. After receiving the confirmation that the refund application has been received, every taxable person should be confident that his application will be processed in accordance with the provisions of that directive. If that does not occur, his confidence that lawful procedures are being applied will be undermined.

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

         (2)  OJ 2008 L 44, p. 23.


title: Case T-748/16: Judgment of the General Court of 2 May 2019 — QH v Parliament (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Decision rejecting the request for assistance — Principles of objectivity and impartiality — Right to good administration — Right to be heard)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 2 May 2019 — QH v Parliament
      (Case T-748/16) (1)

      (Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Decision rejecting the request for assistance - Principles of objectivity and impartiality - Right to good administration - Right to be heard)
      (2019/C 213/24)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: QH (represented initially by N. Lhoëst and S. Michiels, and subsequently by N. Lhoëst, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 26 January 2016 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance made by the applicant on 11 December 2014 and the decision of 12 July 2016 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment rejected the applicant’s claim and, secondly, compensation for the loss he allegedly suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of that authority when processing that request for assistance.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the European Parliament’s decision of 26 January 2016 rejecting his request for assistance, as confirmed by the decision of 12 July 2016 rejecting his claim;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the claim as to the remainder;

                  3.

                     Declares that the parties are to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-49/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Spain v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Financial corrections — Meaning of ‘producer’ — Investments made outside the premises of a producer organisation — Checks carried out before the approval of an operational programme — Check carried out in the authorisation of expenditure — Single financial correction — Flat-rate financial correction — Proportionality — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/27

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Spain v Commission
      (Case T-49/17) (1)

      (EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Financial corrections - Meaning of ‘producer’ - Investments made outside the premises of a producer organisation - Checks carried out before the approval of an operational programme - Check carried out in the authorisation of expenditure - Single financial correction - Flat-rate financial correction - Proportionality - Duty to state reasons)
      (2019/C 213/25)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Spain (represented initially by V. Ester Casas, abogado del Estado, and subsequently by S. Jiménez García, acting as Agent)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and M. Morales Puerta, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016, 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 2016, L 312, p. 26).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.


title: Case T-239/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Germany v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Germany — Flat-rate financial correction applied due to insufficient frequency of key controls — Obligation to calculate interest and record it in the accounts annually — Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC)No 1290/2005 — Article 6(h) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Germany v Commission
      (Case T-239/17) (1)

      (EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Germany - Flat-rate financial correction applied due to insufficient frequency of key controls - Obligation to calculate interest and record it in the accounts annually - Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC)No 1290/2005 - Article 6(h) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality)
      (2019/C 213/27)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially D. Klebs and T. Henze, and subsequently D. Klebs, acting as Agents)

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

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU)2017/264 of 14 February 2017 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 2017 L 39, p. 12), in so far as it concerns the Federal Republic of Germany.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case T-737/17: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Wattiau v Parliament (Civil service — Social Security — JSIS — Reimbursement of medical costs — Agreement concluded inter alia between the European Union, Luxembourg and the Entente des hôpitaux luxembourgeois on the scales of fees for hospital care received by JSIS members — Plea of illegality — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — First paragraph of Article 18 TFEU — Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Article 39 of the Joint rules on sickness insurance for officials)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Wattiau v Parliament
      (Case T-737/17) (1)

      (Civil service - Social Security - JSIS - Reimbursement of medical costs - Agreement concluded inter alia between the European Union, Luxembourg and the Entente des hôpitaux luxembourgeois on the scales of fees for hospital care received by JSIS members - Plea of illegality - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality - First paragraph of Article 18 TFEU - Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 39 of the Joint rules on sickness insurance for officials)
      (2019/C 213/28)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Francis Wattiau (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Rantala and J. Van Pottelberge, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Association des seniors de la fonction publique européenne (SFPE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of the decision of the Luxembourg Settlements Office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Union, as evidenced in payment slip No 244 of 25 January 2017, rendering the applicant liable for payment of the sum of EUR 843.01 and, secondly, of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament, as the appointing authority, of 2 August 2017, confirming that decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the Luxembourg Settlements Office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme, as evidenced in payment slip No 244 of 25 January 2017, rendering Mr Francis Wattiau liable for payment of the sum of EUR 843.01, corresponding to 15 % of the medical bill of 30 May 2016;

                  2.

                     Orders the Parliament, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs incurred by Mr Wattiau.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.


title: Case T-136/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Kuota International v EUIPO — Sintema Sport (K) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark K — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/30

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Kuota International v EUIPO — Sintema Sport (K)
      (Case T-136/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark K - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 213/29)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Kuota International Corp. Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Isles) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sintema Sport Srl (Albiate, Italy)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 (Case R 3111/2014-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Kuota International and Sintema Sport.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 December 2017 (Case R 3111/2014-1);

                  2.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                     Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.


title: Cases T-152/18 to T-155/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for the EU figurative marks SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA — Earlier national word mark MULTIPLUS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA)
      (Cases T-152/18 to T-155/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for the EU figurative marks SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA - Earlier national word mark MULTIPLUS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 213/30)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Solgar Holdings, Inc. (Ronkonkoma, New York, United States) (represented by: K. Neefs and S. Cubitt, lawyers)

         Re:

      Actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 (Cases R 1319/2017-4, R 1321/2017-4, R 1322/2017-4 and R 1323/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sona Nutrition and Solgar Holdings.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Joins Cases T-152/18 to T-155/18 for the purposes of the judgment;

                  2.

                     Annuls the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 December 2017 (Cases R 1319/2017-4, R 1321/2017-4, R 1322/2017-4 and R 1323/2017-4);

                  3.

                     Orders EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc. to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Sona Nutrition Ltd.

         (1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.


title: Case T-214/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Briois v Parliament (Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision to waive parliamentary immunity — Relation with parliamentary duties — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Rights of the defence — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Briois v Parliament
      (Case T-214/18) (1)

      (Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity - Relation with parliamentary duties - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Rights of the defence - Non-contractual liability)
      (2019/C 213/31)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Steeve Briois (Hénin-Beaumont, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision P8_TA(2018)0020 of the Parliament of 6 February 2018 to waive the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Steeve Briois to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

         (1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.


title: Case T-407/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — WP v EUIPO (Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contracts — Decision not to renew — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Equal treatment — Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — WP v EUIPO
      (Case T-407/18) (1)

      (Civil service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contracts - Decision not to renew - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Equal treatment - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint)
      (2019/C 213/33)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: WP (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 refusing a second renewal of the applicant’s temporary staff contract.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders WP to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.


title: Case T-381/18: Order of the General Court of 29 April 2019 — Engel v EUIPO — F. Engel (ENGEL) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/36

      Order of the General Court of 29 April 2019 — Engel v EUIPO — F. Engel (ENGEL)
      (Case T-381/18) (1)

      (European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
      (2019/C 213/37)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Engel GmbH (Pfullingen, Germany) (represented by: C. Pfitzer, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: F. Engel K/S (Haderslev, Denmark) (represented by: L. Elmgaard Sørensen, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2018 (Case R 1423/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between F. Engel and Engel.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

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

                  2.

                     Engel GmbH and F. Engel K/S shall bear their own costs and Engel GmbH shall pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.


title: Case T-495/18: Order of the General Court of 29 April 2019 — Dermatest v EUIPO (DERMATEST) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark DERMATEST — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/37

      Order of the General Court of 29 April 2019 — Dermatest v EUIPO (DERMATEST)
      (Case T-495/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark DERMATEST - Refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
      (2019/C 213/38)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek, D. Hanf and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 (Case R 426/2018-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign DERMATEST as an EU trade mark

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

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

                  2.

                     Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.


title: Case T-530/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Romania v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Commission Implementing Decision — Notification to the addressee — Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/37

      Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Romania v Commission
      (Case T-530/18) (1)

      (Action for annulment - EAGF and EAFRD - Commission Implementing Decision - Notification to the addressee - Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 213/39)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Parties

         Applicant: Romania (represented by: C.-R Canțăr, E. Gane, C.-M. Florescu and O.-C Ichim, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J Aquilina and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018 L 152, p. 29) in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by Romania.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     Romania shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.


title: Case T-145/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 2 May 2019 — Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales v Commission (Application for interim measures — Environment — Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) — Project LIFE 11 ENV/ES/000593-H2AL RECYCLING — Recovery of sums paid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/38

      Order of the President of the General Court of 2 May 2019 — Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales v Commission
      (Case T-145/19 R)
      (Application for interim measures - Environment - Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) - Project LIFE 11 ENV/ES/000593-H2AL RECYCLING - Recovery of sums paid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)
      (2019/C 213/40)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales, SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: G. Alabau Zabal, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Izquierdo Pérez, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision BUDG/DGA 1/C4/CB/3241812545 of 14 January 2019 regarding the recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 82 750.96 plus default interest.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                     The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-114/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Pavel v EUIPO — bugatti (B)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/39

      Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Pavel v EUIPO — bugatti (B)
      (Case T-114/19)
      (2019/C 213/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Dan-Gabriel Pavel (Oradea, Romania) (represented by: E. Nedelcu, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: bugatti GmbH (Herford, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark B — European Union trade mark No 13 545 181

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2018 in related Cases R 49/2018-1 and R 85/2018-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and maintain the trade mark EUTM-013545181 validly registered as it was registered on 05/05/2016 for all the goods and services;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the judicial costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Absence of proof concerning the breach of the public interest.


title: Case T-190/19: Action brought on 4 April 2019 — BF v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/40

      Action brought on 4 April 2019 — BF v Commission
      (Case T-190/19)
      (2019/C 213/42)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: BF (represented by: S. Gesterkamp, lawyer, and C. König, Professor)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, as from 18 December 2018, the date of electronic service of the applicant’s second letter requesting the defendant to act, the defendant failed through inaction to fulfil its obligation to issue a decision, to be sent to the applicant as a complainant, closing the preliminary examination procedure in State aid case SA.48706 (RVV Rostocker Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-Holding GmbH and Nordwasser GmbH), that is, either a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure or a decision not to initiate that procedure;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

                  —

                  as a precaution and in the alternative, should the defendant remedy its failure to act after the action has been brought, order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The action is based on the following pleas in law.
      The applicant claims, first of all, that the requirements of an action for failure to act have been met, in particular because the factual circumstances were, on the date of service of the second letter requesting the defendant to act, such as to permit a decision closing the preliminary examination procedure under Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. (1)

      The applicant further submits that the defendant, in its administrative letter of 17 December 2018, merely normatively stated a legal monopoly in favour of Nordwasser GmbH, commissioned by means of an in-house transaction, which could rule out a distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, without thereby addressing factual issues such as the factual precondition of favourable treatment.
      The applicant also claims that, in submitting its complaint, it had already disproved at an earlier stage of the procedure that a legal monopoly had been formed in accordance with EU law. In any event, the defendant should have expressed its view purely legally on the basis of the established facts and, consequently, at least have issued an actionable decision not to initiate the procedure under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 by no later than December 2018.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).


title: Case T-198/19: Action brought on 4 April 2019 — BA v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/42

      Action brought on 4 April 2019 — BA v Commission
      (Case T-198/19)
      (2019/C 213/44)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

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

                  2.

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

                  3.

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

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


title: Case T-200/19: Action brought on 5 April 2019 — BB v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/44

      Action brought on 5 April 2019 — BB v Commission
      (Case T-200/19)
      (2019/C 213/45)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

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

                  2.

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

                  3.

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

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


title: Case T-201/19: Action brought on 5 April 2019 — BC v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/45

      Action brought on 5 April 2019 — BC v Commission
      (Case T-201/19)
      (2019/C 213/46)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

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

                  2.

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

                  3.

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

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


title: Case T-210/19: Action brought on 5 April 2019 — Società Agricola Tenuta di Rimale and Others v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/48

      Action brought on 5 April 2019 — Società Agricola Tenuta di Rimale and Others v Commission
      (Case T-210/19)
      (2019/C 213/48)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicants: Società Agricola Tenuta di Rimale s.s. (Fidenza, Italy) and another nine applicants (represented by: M. Libertini, A. Scognamiglio and M. Spolidoro, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the General Court should annul the contested Commission notice and order a re-examination of the reasons set out in the submitted complaint. That re-examination must be made on the basis of a different and more accurate interpretation of Article 150 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, (1) and a more extensive investigation which will expose the unconvincing and inconsistent nature of the reasoning put forward by the Consorzio [del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano], in order to confirm sine die that the regulation of the supply of milk for the production of PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese is discriminatory and unjustified.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action is brought against the notice of 6 February 2019 issued by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, which decided to close the file on the complaint submitted by the applicants on 5 February 2018 by which they claimed that Decreto del Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, del 15 dicembre 2016, n. 6762 (Decree No 6762 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry of 15 December 2016), approving the plan for the regulation of the supply of ‘Parmigiano-Reggiano’ cheese for the three-year period from 2017 to 2019 inclusive, was unlawful, as was Decreto del Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, del 19 settembre 2017, n. 5320 (Decree No 5320 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry of 19 September 2017), which approved amendments to the plan for the regulation of the supply of ‘Parmigiano-Reggiano’ cheese for the three-year period from 2017 to 2019 inclusive.
      In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Article 150 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 as regards establishing the qualified majority of producers concerned by the proposed regulation of supply.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Article 150 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 as regards the need to establish the substantive criteria for market imbalance for the purpose of adopting temporary supply regulation measures, and as regards the need for an adequate accompanying statement of reasons.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Article 150 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 as regards the prohibition of discriminatory plans for regulation of supply.

         (1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608.


title: Case T-231/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Klöckner Pentaplast v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/49

      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Klöckner Pentaplast v Commission
      (Case T-231/19)
      (2019/C 213/49)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Klöckner Pentaplast GmbH (Heiligenroth, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

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

                  2.

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


title: Case T-233/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Infineon Technologies Dresden v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/52

      Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Infineon Technologies Dresden v Commission
      (Case T-233/19)
      (2019/C 213/51)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Infineon Technologies Dresden GmbH & Co. KG (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: L. Assmann and M. Peiffer, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the defendant’s decision, notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1), of 28 May 2018 on aid scheme SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 of the Stromnetzentgeltverordnung (Regulation on electricity network charges, ‘the StromNEV’); and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on one plea in law, arguing that the contested decision is unlawful because the exemption from the network charges under the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV is not State aid within the meaning of Article 107 et seq. TFEU.
      In this regard, the applicant first argues that the exemption from network charges granted on the basis of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV was not granted through State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU but was financed through German electricity grid operators which are organised under private law and are not attributable to the State. Neither does the effect of the disputed surcharge equate to a levy on electricity consumption in Germany. In addition, the Federal Republic of Germany has no control over the transmission system operators which are entrusted with the management of these resources.
      It is further claimed that the exemption from network charges on the basis of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV differs in significant aspects from the underlying circumstances in Cases C-206/06, Essent Netwerk Noord and Others and C-262/12, Vent De Colère!. The disputed case is comparable, however, with the surcharge in Case C-405/16 P, Germany v Commission, and therefore not classifiable as aid.


title: Case T-238/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Wepa Hygieneprodukte and Others v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/55

      Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Wepa Hygieneprodukte and Others v Commission
      (Case T-238/19)
      (2019/C 213/54)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: Wepa Hygieneprodukte GmbH (Arnsberg, Germany), Wepa Leuna GmbH (Leuna, Germany), Wepa Papierfabrik Sachsen GmbH (Arnsberg) (represented by: H. Janssen and A. Vallone, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the European Commission, notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1), of 28 May 2018 on aid scheme SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 of the Stromnetzentgeltverordnung (Regulation on electricity network charges); and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on one plea in law, arguing that the exemption from network usage charges is not aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
      In that regard, the applicants first claim that the exemption from network usage charges did not entail the use of State or State-granted resources. It is further claimed that the defendant erred when considering that the Paragraph 19 surcharge constitutes a ‘levy’ or ‘parafiscal levy’ imposed by the State on end-users within the meaning of the judgment of 17 July 2008, Essent Netwerk Noord and Others (C-206/06, EU:C:2008:413).
      It is further submitted that the baseload consumers were not granted a selective advantage.


title: Case T-246/19: Action brought on 10 Avril 2019 — Cambodia and CRF/Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/57

      Action brought on 10 Avril 2019 — Cambodia and CRF/Commission
      (Case T-246/19)
      (2019/C 213/56)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Kingdom of Cambodia and Cambodia Rice Federation (CRF) (Phnom Penh, Cambodia) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/67 of 16 January 2019; (1) and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the limitation of the notion of European Union producers to those producers of the like or directly competing products that are manufactured using raw materials (paddy rice) produced in the European Union violates Article 22(1) and 23 of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012. (2) In the alternative, the defendant’s approach would have violated Article 22(2) of Regulation No 978/2012.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that by relying on incorrect or inaccurate data or data that would have not been related specifically to the like product, the defendant would have failed to assess properly the ‘serious difficulties’, in violation of Article 23 of Regulation No 978/2012. This would have made it impossible to assess properly if the conditions of Article 22(1) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 are met in relation to the like product as defined in Article 22(2) of Regulation No 978/2012.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant carried out a comparison of the Cambodian import prices and the European Union prices in a way that would have violated Article 22(1) and 23 of Regulation No 978/2012.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s causation analysis violates Article 22(1) of Regulation No 978/2012 as the serious difficulties faced by the European Union industry would have not been a sufficiently direct consequence of the Cambodian imports’ volume and prices. To the extent that the Regulation 2019/67 would rely on a cumulative analysis, it would also violate Article 22(1) of Regulation No 978/2012.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to disclose several essential facts or considerations or details underlying such essential facts or considerations in violation of Articles 17(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1083/2013 of 28 August 2013, (3) Article 38 of Regulation No 978/2012 and the applicants’ rights of defence.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the constituted file is largely deficient and would miss important sets of information. This would constitute a violation of Article 14 of Commission Delegated Regulation No 1083/2013, Article 38 of Regulation No 978/2012 and the applicants’ rights of defence.

         (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/67 of 16 January 2019 imposing safeguard measures with regard to imports of Indica rice originating in Cambodia and Myanmar/Burma (OJ L 15, 17.1.2019, p. 5).

         (2)  Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (OJ L 303, 31.10.2012, p. 1).

         (3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1083/2013 of 28 August 2013 establishing rules related to the procedure for temporary withdrawal of tariff preferences and adoption of general safeguard measures under Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences (OJ L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 16).


title: Case T-248/19: Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Bilde v Parliament

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/58

      Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Bilde v Parliament
      (Case T-248/19)
      (2019/C 213/57)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Dominique Bilde (Lagarde, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the European Parliament P8_TA-PROV(2019)0137, of 12 March 2019, on the request for the waiver of the immunity of the applicant 2018/2267(IMM), and which actually waived the applicant’s immunity;

                  —

                  order the Parliament 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 9 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 266), of Article 5(1) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 2005 L 44, p. 1) and of the Communications to Members Nos 11/2003 and 22/2016.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging an abuse of process, more specifically, infringement of Article 43 of the Communication to Members No 11/2016, inasmuch as the underlying purpose of the charges is to damage the applicant’s political activity, which constitutes a case of fumus persecutionis against him.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles of EU law ‘ne bis in idem’ and ‘electa una via’, an abuse of process and a misuse of powers.


title: Case T-251/19: Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Wieland-Werke/Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/59

      Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Wieland-Werke/Commission
      (Case T-251/19)
      (2019/C 213/58)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Wieland-Werke AG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, C. von Köckritz and K. Winkelmann, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the European Commission in Case M.8900 — Wieland/Aurubis Rolled Products/Schwermetall of 5 February 2019;

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made manifest errors by basing the contested decision on the flawed concept of a so-called ‘high-end’ sub-segment instead of basing the contested decision on the relevant market for rolled copper products as defined by the Commission itself.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission provided neither a definition nor a clear-cut delineation of the so- called ‘high-end’ sub-segment, which it — untenably — based its assessment on. The Commission’s approach is manifestly erroneous and speculative.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment by contradicting its own findings in the clearance decision in case M.8909 — KME/MKM.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission applied an unprecedented and untenable theory of harm sui generis inappropriately linking horizontal and non-horizontal effect and mixing up clear and strict guidance provided by the merger guidelines.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made manifest errors in the competitive assessment of its alleged horizontal concern blatantly failing to investigate obvious facts in establishing the competitive landscape of the relevant market.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s assessment regarding the switching possibilities of customers is manifestly erroneous.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission alleges price increases due to the transaction without having provided any respective evidence.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in its assessment of the change from joint to sole control over Schwermetall. In particular, the Commission failed to take the necessary investigative steps.

                  9.

                  Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in the assessment of the commitments offered by the applicant.

                  10.

                  Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s handling of the remedy procedure and of the market test was not compliant with due process.

                  11.

                  Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated essential procedural requirements and due process. It refused to market test the first two commitments and launched the market test far too late in the process.