title: Case T-300/16: Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission (Subsidies — Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 — Imposition of a definitive countervailing duty — Indian scheme establishing an export tax on iron ore and a dual railway freight charge placing the transport of iron ore for export at a disadvantage — Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (replaced by Regulation (EU) 2016/1037) — Financial contribution — Provision of goods — Action consisting of ‘entrusting’ a private body to carry out a function constituting a financial contribution — Article 4(2)(a) of Regulation No 597/2009 — Specificity of a subsidy — Article 6(d) of Regulation No 597/2009 — Calculation of benefit — Injury to the Union industry — Calculation of price undercutting and the injury margin — Causal link — Access to confidential data of the subsidy investigation — Rights of the defence)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/60

      Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission
      (Case T-300/16) (1)

      (Subsidies - Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 - Imposition of a definitive countervailing duty - Indian scheme establishing an export tax on iron ore and a dual railway freight charge placing the transport of iron ore for export at a disadvantage - Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (replaced by Regulation (EU) 2016/1037) - Financial contribution - Provision of goods - Action consisting of ‘entrusting’ a private body to carry out a function constituting a financial contribution - Article 4(2)(a) of Regulation No 597/2009 - Specificity of a subsidy - Article 6(d) of Regulation No 597/2009 - Calculation of benefit - Injury to the Union industry - Calculation of price undercutting and the injury margin - Causal link - Access to confidential data of the subsidy investigation - Rights of the defence)
      (2019/C 187/64)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and G. Luengo, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Saint-Gobain Pam (Pont-à-Mousson, France) (represented by: O. Prost, A. Coelho Dias and C. Bouvarel, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron), originating in India (OJ 2016 L 73, p. 1), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicants.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron), originating in India, in so far as it concerns Jindal Saw Ltd;

                  2.

                     Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia SpA;

                  3.

                     Orders Saint-Gobain Pam to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case T-5/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — Sharif v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Damage to reputation)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/64

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — Sharif v Council
      (Case T-5/17) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Damage to reputation)
      (2019/C 187/68)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Ammar Sharif (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: B. Kennelly QC, and J. Pobjoy, Barrister)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, P. Mahnič and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Havas and J. Norris, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application, principally, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/1897 of 27 October 2016 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 293, p. 36), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1893 of 27 October 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 293, p. 25), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 62), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/907 of 29 May 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 15), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant; and, in the alternative, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU for a declaration that the following provisions are inapplicable, in so far as they apply to the applicant: Article 28(2)(a) of Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836 of 12 October 2015 (OJ 2015 L 266, p. 75), and Article 15(1a)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1828 of 12 October 2015 (OJ 2015 L 266, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Ammar Sharif to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

                  3.

                     Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Case T-51/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Poland v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Fruit and vegetable sector — Aid to producer groups — Expenditure effected by Poland — Weaknesses in key controls — Checks on recognition plans and on recognition criteria — Checks on applications for aid — Economic consistency — Reasonableness of expenditure — Systemic weakness — Risk to EAGF — Flat rate corrections of 25 %)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/65

      Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Poland v Commission
      (Case T-51/17) (1)

      (EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Fruit and vegetable sector - Aid to producer groups - Expenditure effected by Poland - Weaknesses in key controls - Checks on recognition plans and on recognition criteria - Checks on applications for aid - Economic consistency - Reasonableness of expenditure - Systemic weakness - Risk to EAGF - Flat rate corrections of 25 %)
      (2019/C 187/69)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission (initially represented by: K. Skelly and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment 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) (JO 2016, L 312, p. 26) concerning the flat rate corrections applied in respect of the Republic of Poland.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action.

                  2.

                     Orders the Republic of Poland to pay, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission.

                  3.

                     Orders the Commission to pay one quarter of its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.


title: Case T-108/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — ClientEarth v Commission (REACH — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) — Request for internal review of a decision on marketing authorisation rejected as unfounded — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/66

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — ClientEarth v Commission
      (Case T-108/17) (1)

      (REACH - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) - Request for internal review of a decision on marketing authorisation rejected as unfounded - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006)
      (2019/C 187/70)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Jones, Barrister)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the letter of the Commission of 7 December 2016 by which that institution rejected a request for internal review of 2 August 2016 against Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 3549 final of 16 June 2016, granting an authorisation for uses of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                     Orders the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case T-223/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — European Union figurative mark ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS — Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001) — No distinctive character acquired by use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Infringement of the right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/67

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS)
      (Case T-223/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union figurative mark ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS - Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001) - No distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Infringement of the right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)
      (2019/C 187/71)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peñiscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Rajendra, Solicitor, and by S. Malynicz QC)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 2522/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Coatings Foreign IP and Adapta Color.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Adapta Color, SL to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.


title: Case T-224/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — European Union figurative mark Bio proof ADAPTA — Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001) — No distinctive character acquired by use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Infringement of the right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/68

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA)
      (Case T-224/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union figurative mark Bio proof ADAPTA - Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001) - No distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Infringement of the right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)
      (2019/C 187/72)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peñiscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, by G. Marín Raigal and by E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, A. Söder and D. Walicka, Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Rajendra, Solicitor, and by S. Malynicz QC)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 2521/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Coatings Foreign IP and Adapta Color

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Adapta Color, SL to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.


title: Case T-225/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — European Union figurative mark Bio proof ADAPTA — Declaration of partial invalidity by the Board of Appeal — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001) — No distinctive character acquired by use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Infringement of the right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/69

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA)
      (Case T-225/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union figurative mark Bio proof ADAPTA - Declaration of partial invalidity by the Board of Appeal - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001) - No distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Infringement of the right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)
      (2019/C 187/73)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peñiscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Rajendra, Solicitor, and by S. Malynicz QC)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 311/2016-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Coatings Foreign IP and Adapta Color.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Adapta Color, SL to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.


title: Case T-229/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Germany v Commission (Approximation of laws — Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 — Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 — Construction products — Harmonised standards EN 14342:2013 and EN 14904:2006 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/70

      Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Germany v Commission
      (Case T-229/17) (1)

      (Approximation of laws - Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 - Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 - Construction products - Harmonised standards EN 14342:2013 and EN 14904:2006 - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2019/C 187/74)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by T. Henze and J. Möller, and subsequently by J. Möller, acting as Agents, and by M. Winkelmüller, F. van Schewick and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by G. Zavvos and C. Hermes, and subsequently by C. Hermes and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of, first, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/133 of 25 January 2017 on the maintenance with a restriction in the Official Journal of the European Union of the reference of harmonised standard EN 14342:2013 ‘Wood flooring and parquet: Characteristics, evaluation of conformity and marking’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 21, p. 113), second, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/145 of 25 January 2017 on the maintenance with a restriction in the Official Journal of the European Union of the reference of harmonised standard EN 14904:2006 ‘Surfaces for sport areas — Indoor surfaces for multi-sports use: Specification’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 22, p. 62), third, the Commission communication of 10 March 2017 in the framework of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ 2017 C 76, p. 32), in so far as it refers to harmonised standards EN 14342:2013 and EN 14904:2006, fourth, the Commission Communication of 11 August 2017 in the framework of the implementation of Regulation No 305/2011 (OJ 2017 C 267, p. 16), in so far as it refers to harmonised standards EN 14342:2013 and EN 14904:2006, fifth, the Commission Communication of 15 December 2017 in the framework of the implementation of Regulation No 305/2011 (OJ 2017 C 435, p. 41), in so far as it concerns harmonised standards EN 14342:2013 and EN 14904:2006, and, sixth, the Commission Communication of 9 March 2018 in the framework of the implementation of Regulation No 305/2011 (OJ 2018 C 92, p. 139), in so far as it refers to harmonised standards EN 14342:2013 and EN 14904:2006.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2)

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

                  3)

                     Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case T-319/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Aldridge and Others v Commission (Civil service — Temporary staff — OLAF — Contract for an indefinite period — Decision of the Director of OLAF establishing a one-off reclassification to the next higher grade — Request for an annual reclassification procedure to be launched — Measure of a general nature — Time-limit for bringing an action — Point from which time stars to run — Publication on the intranet — Inadmissibility)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/71

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Aldridge and Others v Commission
      (Case T-319/17) (1)

      (Civil service - Temporary staff - OLAF - Contract for an indefinite period - Decision of the Director of OLAF establishing a one-off reclassification to the next higher grade - Request for an annual reclassification procedure to be launched - Measure of a general nature - Time-limit for bringing an action - Point from which time stars to run - Publication on the intranet - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 187/75)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Adam Aldridge (Schaerbeek, Belgium) and the 32 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Tymen and A. Champetier, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Radu Bouyon and M. Mensi, then L. Radu Bouyon and G. Berscheid, Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) dated 15 July 2016 rejecting the applicants’ request seeking the implementation of an annual reclassification procedure and of the decision of the Director-General of OLAF dated 13 February 2017 rejecting the complaint brought against the decision dated 15 July 2016 and, secondly, the payment of compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicants.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Declares that Mr Adam Aldridge and the other members of the temporary staff and former members of the temporary staff of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) whose names are set out in the annex are to bear their own costs and orders them to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.


title: Case T-371/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission (Competition — Market for baseband chipsets used in consumer electronic devices — Administrative procedure — Article 18(3) and Article 24(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Decision requesting information — Obligation to state reasons — Necessity of the information requested — Proportionality — Burden of proof — Privilege against self-incrimination — Principle of good administration)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/72

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission
      (Case T-371/17) (1)

      (Competition - Market for baseband chipsets used in consumer electronic devices - Administrative procedure - Article 18(3) and Article 24(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Decision requesting information - Obligation to state reasons - Necessity of the information requested - Proportionality - Burden of proof - Privilege against self-incrimination - Principle of good administration)
      (2019/C 187/76)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Qualcomm, Inc (San Diego, California, United States), Qualcomm Europe, Inc., (Sacramento, California, United States) (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato and M. Davilla, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, G. Conte, M. Farley and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 2258 final of 31 March 2017 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) and to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.39711 — Qualcomm (predation))

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Qualcomm, Inc. and Qualcomm Europe, Inc. to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case T-655/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ansell (ZARA TANZANIA ADVETURES) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark ZARA TANZANIA ADVENTURES — Earlier EU word marks ZARA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks — Detriment to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/73

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ansell (ZARA TANZANIA ADVETURES)
      (Case T-655/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark ZARA TANZANIA ADVENTURES - Earlier EU word marks ZARA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks - Detriment to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks)
      (2019/C 187/77)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

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

         Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Zainab Ansell and Roger Ansell (Moshi, Tanzania)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 July 2017 (Joined Cases R 2330/2011-2 and R 2369/2011 2), relating to opposition proceedings between Industria de Diseño Textil, on the one hand, and Mrs Ansell and Mr Ansell, on the other hand.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2017 (Joined Cases R 2330/2011-2 and R 2369/2011-2) in so far as the Board of Appeal partially upheld the appeal brought by Mrs Ansell and Mr Ansell (Case R 2369/2011-2) and allowed the mark applied for to proceed to registration in respect of the services which are listed in point 3 of the operative part of that decision and are in Classes 39 and 43 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                     Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) in the course of the proceedings before the General Court.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case T-765/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Kiku v CPVO — Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie (Pinova) (Plant varieties — Nullity proceedings — Apple variety Pinova — Rejection of the application for a declaration of nullity — New variety — Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Burden of proof — Article 76 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Examination of the facts by the CPVO of its own motion)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/74

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Kiku v CPVO — Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie (Pinova)
      (Case T-765/17) (1)

      (Plant varieties - Nullity proceedings - Apple variety Pinova - Rejection of the application for a declaration of nullity - New variety - Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Burden of proof - Article 76 of Regulation No 2100/94 - Examination of the facts by the CPVO of its own motion)
      (2019/C 187/78)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Kiku GmbH (Girlan, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

         Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (represented by: M. Ekvad, F. Mattina and O. Lamberti, acting as Agents, assisted by A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervener before the General Court: Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie (Dresden, Germany) (represented initially by: T. Leidereiter, and subsequently by: B. Lorenzen, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 16 August 2017 (Case A 005/2016) concerning the nullity proceedings between Kiku and the Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie.

         Operative part

      The Court hereby:

                  1)

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                     Orders Kiku GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case T-277/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Zitro IP v EUIPO (PICK & WIN MULTISLOT) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark PICK & WIN MULTISLOT — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/74

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Zitro IP v EUIPO (PICK & WIN MULTISLOT)
      (Case T-277/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark PICK & WIN MULTISLOT - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 187/79)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 978/2017-4) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign PICK & WIN MULTISLOT as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Zitro IP Sàrl to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


title: Case T-303/18 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — AV v Commission (Civil service — Temporary agents — Engagement — Article 13 of the CEOS — Pre-engagement medical examination — Incomplete declarations at the medical examination — Failure of the person concerned to declare an illness — Subsequent discovery by the AECE — Retroactive application of medical cover deferment for five years — Referral to the Invalidity Committee — Reasonable time limit — Responsibility — Non-material injury)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/75

      Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — AV v Commission
      (Case T-303/18 RENV) (1)

      (Civil service - Temporary agents - Engagement - Article 13 of the CEOS - Pre-engagement medical examination - Incomplete declarations at the medical examination - Failure of the person concerned to declare an illness - Subsequent discovery by the AECE - Retroactive application of medical cover deferment for five years - Referral to the Invalidity Committee - Reasonable time limit - Responsibility - Non-material injury)
      (2019/C 187/80)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Commission of 16 September 2014 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution decided to apply to the applicant the medical reservation clause provided for in Article 32 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and not to grant him an invalidity allowance and, second, compensation for the harm he has allegedly suffered in connection with that decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Rejects the claims for annulment;

                  2.

                     Orders the European Commission to pay AV an amount of EUR 3 000;

                  3.

                     Rejects the claim for damages for the remainder;

                  4.

                     Orders AV and the Commission each to pay their own costs pertaining to the initial proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union, in the action in Case F-91/15 and in the present appeal proceedings in T-303/18 RENV.

         (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-91/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-323/18: Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Fomanu v EUIPO — Fujifilm Imaging GermanyReresentation of a butterfly) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a butterfly — Genuine use of the mark — Partial revocation — Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/76

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Fomanu v EUIPO — Fujifilm Imaging Germany Reresentation of a butterfly)
      (Case T-323/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a butterfly - Genuine use of the mark - Partial revocation - Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 187/81)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Fomanu AG (Neustadt an der Waldnaab, Germany) (represented by: S. Reichart, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Fujifilm Imaging Germany GmbH & Co. KG (Willich, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2018 (Case R 2241/2016-2) relating to revocation proceedings between Fujifilm Imaging Germany and Fomanu.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Fomanu AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.


title: Case T-403/18: Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Objectif Pharma (WS wellpharma shop) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark WS wellpharma shop — Earlier national word mark WELL AND WELL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/77

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Objectif Pharma (WS wellpharma shop)
      (Case T-403/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark WS wellpharma shop - Earlier national word mark WELL AND WELL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 187/82)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M.-P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Pétrequin and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Objectif Pharma (Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France) (represented by: A. Nappey, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2018 (Case R 1448/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Pharmadom and Objectif Pharma.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Pharmadom to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.


title: Case T-468/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 April 2019 — NSC Holding v EUIPO — Ibercondor (CONDOR SERVICE, NSC) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark CONDOR SERVICE, NSC — Earlier EU word mark IBERCONDOR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/77

      Judgment of the General Court of 3 April 2019 — NSC Holding v EUIPO — Ibercondor (CONDOR SERVICE, NSC)
      (Case T-468/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CONDOR SERVICE, NSC - Earlier EU word mark IBERCONDOR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 187/83)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: NSC Holding GmbH & Cie. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Eichhorst, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ibercondor, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 (Case R 2440/2017-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ibercondor Barcelona SA and NSC Holding.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders NSC Holding GmbH & Cie. KG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.


title: Case T-477/18: Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Užstato sistemos administratorius v EUIPO — DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem (Representation of a bottle with an arrow) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a bottle and an arrow — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a can, a bottle and an arrow — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/78

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Užstato sistemos administratorius v EUIPO — DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem (Representation of a bottle with an arrow)
      (Case T-477/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a bottle and an arrow - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a can, a bottle and an arrow - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 187/84)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Užstato sistemos administratorius VŠĮ (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: I. Lukauskienė, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2018 (Case R 2203/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem and Užstato sistemos administratorius.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Užstato sistemos administratorius VšĮ to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.


title: Case T-555/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 April 2019 — Medrobotics v EUIPO (See More. Reach More. Treat More.) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark See More. Reach More. Treat More. — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/79

      Judgment of the General Court of 3 April 2019 — Medrobotics v EUIPO (See More. Reach More. Treat More.)
      (Case T-555/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark See More. Reach More. Treat More. - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 187/85)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Medrobotics Corp. (Rayanham, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: B. Bittner and U. Heinrich, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2018 (Case R 463/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign See More. Reach More. Treat More. as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Medrobotics Corp. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.


title: Joined Cases C-473/17 and C-546/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Repsol Butano SA (C-473/17), DISA Gas SAU (C-546/17) v Administración del Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Energy — Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) sector — Consumer protection — Requirement of general economic interest — Maximum price of a bottle of gas — Home delivery obligation — Article 106 TFEU — Directives 2003/55/EC, 2009/73/EC and 2006/123/EC — Interpretation of the judgment of 20 April 2010, Federutility and Others (C-265/08, EU:C:2010:205) — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/2

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Repsol Butano SA (C-473/17), DISA Gas SAU (C-546/17) v Administración del Estado
      (Joined Cases C-473/17 and C-546/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy - Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) sector - Consumer protection - Requirement of general economic interest - Maximum price of a bottle of gas - Home delivery obligation - Article 106 TFEU - Directives 2003/55/EC, 2009/73/EC and 2006/123/EC - Interpretation of the judgment of 20 April 2010, Federutility and Others (C-265/08, EU:C:2010:205) - Principle of proportionality)
      (2019/C 206/02)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Supremo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Repsol Butano SA (C-473/17), DISA Gas SAU (C-546/17)

         Defendant: Administración del Estado

         Interveners: Redexis Gas SL, Repsol Butano SA (C-546/17)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The condition of proportionality laid down in Article 15(3)(c) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as not precluding measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which set a maximum price for bottled liquefied petroleum gas and which require certain operators to carry out home delivery of that gas, provided that those measures are maintained only for a limited duration and do not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective of general economic interest pursued.

         (1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

         OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.


title: Case T-174/19: Action brought on 22 March 2019 — Vincenti v EUIPO

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/45

      Action brought on 22 March 2019 — Vincenti v EUIPO
      (Case T-174/19)
      (2019/C 206/49)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Guillaume Vincenti (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decisions of the appointing authority of EUIPO, sent by letter of 6 June 2018, not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AST 8) in the 2014 promotion exercise, the 2015 promotion exercise, the 2016 promotion exercise and the 2017 promotion exercise; and

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The action is based on the following pleas in law.

                  1.

                  Infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, manifest errors of assessment and incorrect implementation of, or failure to comply with, the judgment of 14 November 2017, Vincenti v EUIPO (T-586/16, EU:T:2017:803)
                  In the context of the first plea, the applicant claims that the appointing authority of the defendant infringed Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), made manifest errors of assessment and failed to implement, or incorrectly implemented, the judgment of 14 November 2017, Vincenti v EUIPO (T-586/16, EU:T:2017:803), in so far as that authority did not treat the applicant as though it had, at the material times, allowed him to take part in the individual reporting procedures, but instead carried out an overall assessment when the contested decisions were adopted on 6 June 2018. The refusal to promote the applicant should, in accordance with that judgment, not have been based on circumstances which, at the time when the appointing authority would have been required to make a decision, were not yet known to the Office.
                  The applicant further submits that the overall refusal to promote him for four consecutive years by reference to the same conduct is unlawful because it constitutes a similarly severe penalty to that of Article 9(1)(e) and (f) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and therefore ultimately constitutes a sustained and punitive refusal to promote him which circumvents the rights of the defence to which he is entitled in disciplinary proceedings, as well as ‘double jeopardy’.
                  The applicant also claims that the contested decisions of the Office unlawfully discriminated against him on account of his long-term illness, since the defendant did not positively count the time of his illness as time in which he had improved the conduct for which he was reproached, which constitutes a manifest error of assessment and a misapplication of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and the judgment of 14 November 2017, Vincenti v EUIPO (T-586/16, EU:T:2017:803).

                  2.

                  Infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 5 of Commission Decision C(2013) 8968 final of 16 December 2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in particular under Article 5(5) and (7) of that decision
                  In the context of the second plea, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the applicant’s fundamental right to be heard before the adoption of a decision adversely affecting him, after the applicant was not given the opportunity to make his views known beforehand. This is not disputed by the defendant.
                  The defendant therefore also directly infringed the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 5 of Commission Decision C(2013) 8968 final of 16 December 2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in particular under Article 5(5) and (7) of that decision, which, moreover, reflect the considerable importance of the fundamental right to be heard that was infringed and confirm that the applicant also had the right to be heard in the present case before the adoption of the contested decisions.


title: Case T-135/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Scor v Commission (State aid — Market for reinsuring the risks of natural disaster — Aid in the form of an unlimited state guarantee granted to the CCR — Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market at the end of the preliminary examination procedure — Article 107(3)(c), TFUE — Action for annulment — Locus standi — No substantial effect on the competitive position — Partial inadmissibility — Procedural rights of the interested parties — Interested party — No serious difficulties)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/27

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Scor v Commission
      (Case T-135/17) (1)

      (State aid - Market for reinsuring the risks of natural disaster - Aid in the form of an unlimited state guarantee granted to the CCR - Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market at the end of the preliminary examination procedure - Article 107(3)(c), TFUE - Action for annulment - Locus standi - No substantial effect on the competitive position - Partial inadmissibility - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Interested party - No serious difficulties)
      (2019/C 213/26)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Scor SE (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Baverez, N. Autet, M. Béas and G. Marson, lawyers)

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

         Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented initially by D. Colas, B. Fodda, E. de Moustier and J. Bousin, and subsequently by D. Colas, B. Fodda, P. Dodeller, R. Coesme and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents) and Caisse centrale de réassurance (Paris, France) (represented initially by J.-P. Gunther, A. Giraud and S. Petit, and subsequently by A. Giraud and S. Petit, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 5995 final of 26 September 2016, concerning measures SA.37649 and SA.45860 implemented by France, in so far as the Commission declared the unlimited guarantee granted to the CCR for its business of reinsuring the risks of natural disaster to be compatible with the internal market.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Scor SE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Caisse centrale de réassurance (CCR), including those incurred in connection with the request for confidential treatment.

                  3.

                     Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs, including those incurred in connection with the request for confidential treatment.

         (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case T-115/19: Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Bacardi v EUIPO — La Fée (ANGEL’S ENVY)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/66

      Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Bacardi v EUIPO — La Fée (ANGEL’S ENVY)
      (Case T-115/19) (1)

      (2019/C 230/80)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.


title: Case T-303/19: Action brought on 14 May 2019 — Yanukovych/Conseil

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/26

      Action brought on 14 May 2019 — Yanukovych/Conseil
      (Case T-303/19)
      (2019/C 238/31)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Viktor Feodorovych Yanukovych (Rostov on Don, Russia) (represented by: T. Beazley QC)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354, (1) insofar as it concerns the applicant;

                  —

                  annul the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352, (2) insofar as it concerns the applicant;

                  —

                  order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are, in essence, either identical or similar to the pleas in law relied on in Case T-300/18, Yanukovych v Council. (3)

         (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 64, 5.3.2019, p. 7).

         (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 64, 5.3.2019, p. 1).

         (3)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018, p. 46.


title: Case T-222/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Recylex and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for lead-acid car battery recycling — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Coordination of purchase prices — Fines — Point 26 of the 2006 Leniency Notice — Point 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/17

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Recylex and Others v Commission
      (Case T-222/17) (1)

      (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for lead-acid car battery recycling - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Coordination of purchase prices - Fines - Point 26 of the 2006 Leniency Notice - Point 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction)
      (2019/C 246/17)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Recylex SA (Paris, France), Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA (Brussels, Belgium), Harz-Metall GmbH (Goslar, Germany) (represented by: M. Wellinger, S. Reinart and K. Bongs, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rogalski, J. Szczodrowski and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in Commission Decision C(2017) 900 final of 8 February 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.40018 — Car battery recycling).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Recylex SA, Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA and Harz-Metall GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case T-370/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — KPN v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Netherlands market for television services and telecommunications services — Full-function joint venture — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement — Commitments — Relevant market — Vertical effects — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/18

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — KPN v Commission
      (Case T-370/17) (1)

      (Competition - Concentrations - Netherlands market for television services and telecommunications services - Full-function joint venture - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Commitments - Relevant market - Vertical effects - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons)
      (2019/C 246/18)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: KPN BV (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. van Ginneken and G. Béquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, G. Conte, J. Szczodrowski and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: VodafoneZiggo Group Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Vodafone Group plc (Newbury, United Kingdom), Liberty Global Europe Holding BV (Amsterdam) (represented by: W. Knibbeler, E. Raedts and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 5165 final of 3 August 2016 declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Vodafone Group and Liberty Global Europe Holding of joint control of a full-function joint venture to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7978 — Vodafone — Liberty Global — Dutch JV).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders KPN BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, VodafoneZiggo Group Holding BV, Vodafone Group plc and Liberty Global Europe Holding BV.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.


title: Case T-764/15: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2019 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Measures implemented by Germany in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport — Decision declaring the aid compatible in part with the internal market — Decision finding that there is no State aid — Indirect aid — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/20

      Order of the General Court of 17 May 2019 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
      (Case T-764/15) (1)

      (Action for annulment - State aid - Measures implemented by Germany in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport - Decision declaring the aid compatible in part with the internal market - Decision finding that there is no State aid - Indirect aid - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 246/20)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, K. Herrmann and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) (represented by: Professor C. Koenig)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/788 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.32833 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Germany concerning the financing arrangements for Frankfurt Hahn airport put into place in 2009 to 2011 (OJ 2016, L 134, p. 1).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Deutsche Lufthansa AG shall bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission and of the Land Rheinland-Pfalz.

         (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


title: Case T-230/18: Order of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Czarnecki v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Statements made against another Member of Parliament — Early termination of the term of office and duties of the Vice-President of the Parliament — Rights of the defence — Misuse of powers — Equal treatment)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/22

      Order of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Czarnecki v Parliament
      (Case T-230/18) (1)

      (Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Statements made against another Member of Parliament - Early termination of the term of office and duties of the Vice-President of the Parliament - Rights of the defence - Misuse of powers - Equal treatment)
      (2019/C 246/23)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Ryszard Czarnecki (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 7 February 2018 prematurely bringing to an end the applicant’s term of office as Vice-President of the Parliament.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Ryszard Czarnecki is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


title: Case T-609/18: Order of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Fujifilm Recording Media v EUIPO — iTernity (d:ternity) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for the EU word mark d:ternity — Earlier word mark iTernity — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity before the action was brought — Invalidation of the contested decision — No interest in bringing proceedings — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/23

      Order of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Fujifilm Recording Media v EUIPO — iTernity (d:ternity)
      (Case T-609/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for the EU word mark d:ternity - Earlier word mark iTernity - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity before the action was brought - Invalidation of the contested decision - No interest in bringing proceedings - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
      (2019/C 246/24)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Fujifilm Recording Media (Kleve, Germany) (represented by: R.-D. Härer, C. Schultze, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger and C. Gehweiler, lawyers)

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

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2018 (Case R 2324/2017-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between iTernity and Fujifilm Recording Media.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Each party shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.


title: Case T-685/18: Order of the General Court of 20 May 2019 — Apple v EUIPO — Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/24

      Order of the General Court of 20 May 2019 — Apple v EUIPO — Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT)
      (Case T-685/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
      (2019/C 246/25)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication SCRL (La Hulpe, Belgium) (represented by: G. Glas, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2018 (Case R 476/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication SCRL and Apple Inc.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

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

                  2.

                     Apple Inc. and Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication SCRL shall each bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.


title: Case T-715/18: Order of the General Court of 20 May 2019 — Phreneos and Others v Commission (Public supply contracts — Tender procedure — Planning, preparation, promotion and implementation of the event ‘European Development Days’ — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer — Annulment of the procurement procedure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/25

      Order of the General Court of 20 May 2019 — Phreneos and Others v Commission
      (Case T-715/18) (1)

      (Public supply contracts - Tender procedure - Planning, preparation, promotion and implementation of the event ‘European Development Days’ - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer - Annulment of the procurement procedure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
      (2019/C 246/26)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Phrenos SPRL (Mont-sur-Marchienne, Belgium), Akkanto, (Watermael-Boitsfort, Belgium), Operational Management Solutions (Chaumont Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: R. Jafferali and R. van Melsen, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu, J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of 27 November 2018 rejecting the tender submitted by the consortium formed by the applicants in the call for tenders EuropeAid/139729/DH/SER/BE relating to the planning, preparation, promotion and implementation of the ‘European Development Days’ event for its Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, and awarding that contract to another tenderer.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

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

                  2.

                     The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings, with the exception of those relating to the application by Pomilio Blumm Srl for leave to intervene in the interlocutory proceedings.

                  3.

                     Phrenos SPRL, Akkanto, Operational Management Solutions, the Commission and Pomilio Blumm shall bear their own costs relating to the application by Pomilio Blumm Srl for leave to intervene in the interlocutory proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.


title: Case T-719/18: Order of the General Court of 7 June 2019 — Telemark plus v EUIPO (Telemarkfest) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Telemarkfest — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/25

      Order of the General Court of 7 June 2019 — Telemark plus v EUIPO (Telemarkfest)
      (Case T-719/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Telemarkfest - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 246/27)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Telemark plus eV (Altusried, Germany) (represented by: S. Schenk, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2018 (Case R 346/2018-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Telemarkfest as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

                  2.

                     Telemark plus eV shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.


title: Case T-254/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — AlpaSuri v Commission (Interlocutory proceedings — Import of alpacas — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/26

      Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — AlpaSuri v Commission
      (Case T-254/19 R)
      (Interlocutory proceedings - Import of alpacas - Application for interim measures - No urgency)
      (2019/C 246/28)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: AlpaSuri GbR Barbara Bruns & Wolfgang Stamp (Winsen, Germany) (represented by: U. Schrömbges, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and B. Hofstötter, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking interim measures authorising the import of alpacas into the territory of the European Union from Canada.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                     The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-256/19: Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Assi v Council

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/27

      Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Assi v Council
      (Case T-256/19)
      (2019/C 246/29)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Bashar Assi (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Cloquet, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;

                  —

                  annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 (2), as far as it applies to the applicant, and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that a manifest error of assessment of the facts was committed by the defendant stating that the applicant would be supporting the Syrian regime and would be benefiting from it, while such view would be plainly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that an infringement of the general principle of proportionality was committed and the measures taken in the contested acts would have such effects that they should be regarded as disproportionate in themselves. The economic consequences of the sanctions made against the applicant would be disastrous and disproportionate compared to the purposes the contested acts would be supposed to reach.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and the right to work was committed, in that the disputed measures would prevent the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his property and his economic freedom by way of infringing the first additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers. The contested acts would have been adopted with the aim of achieving objectives other than those stated herein, namely targeting the applicant himself instead of the regime for reasons that would be unknown to him, and so they would be vitiated by a misuse of powers.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that an infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296, paragraph 2, of TFEU was committed. The reasoning given for the contested acts would be, in reality, purely a formality and probably would have not been thought through by the defendant.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that an infringement of the rights of defence and right to a fair trial was committed. The applicant would have never been able to secure a hearing prior imposing the disputed restrictive measures, and since he would have been unable to exercise correctly his rights of defence, including his right to a fair trial, notably guaranteed by Article 6, paragraph 3, of the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 48, paragraph 2, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

         (1)  Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 18I, 21.1.2019, p. 13).

         (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ L 18I, 21.1.2019, p. 4).


title: Case T-289/19: Action brought on 1 May 2019 — Arbuzov v Council

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/28

      Action brought on 1 May 2019 — Arbuzov v Council
      (Case T-289/19)
      (2019/C 246/30)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as that Decision and that Regulation relate to the applicant; and

                  —

                  Declare that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration.
                  The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not exercise due care and attention in the adoption of Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in Ukraine.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s right to property.
                  The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictive measures which have been taken against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property.


title: Case T-291/19: Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Pšonka v Council

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/29

      Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Pšonka v Council
      (Case T-291/19)
      (2019/C 246/31)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: Viktor Pavlovič Pšonka (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as that Decision and that Regulation relate to the applicant; and

                  —

                  Declare that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

         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 the right to sound administration.
                  The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not exercise due care and attention in the adoption of the contested decision, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in Ukraine.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s right to property.
                  The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictive measures which have been taken against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
                  The applicant claims in this connection that in the adoption of the restrictive measures his rights to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence were infringed, as was his right to the protection of private property.


title: Case T-292/19: Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Pšonka v Council

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/30

      Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Pšonka v Council
      (Case T-292/19)
      (2019/C 246/32)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: Artem Viktorovič Pšonka (Kramatorsk, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as that Decision and that Regulation relate to the applicant; and

                  —

                  Declare that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

         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 the right to sound administration.
                  The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not exercise due care and attention in the adoption of the contested decision, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in Ukraine.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s right to property.
                  The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictive measures which have been taken against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
                  The applicant claims in this connection that in the adoption of the restrictive measures his rights to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence were infringed, as was his right to the protection of private property.


title: Case T-301/19: Action brought on 14 May 2019 — PNB Banka and Others v ECB

text:
                  22.7.2019

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 246/31

         Action brought on 14 May 2019 — PNB Banka and Others v ECB
         (Case T-301/19)
         (2019/C 246/33)
         Language of the case: English

            Parties

            Applicants: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia),  CR (*1),  CT (*1) (represented by: O. Behrends and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

            Defendant: European Central Bank

            Form of order sought

         The applicants claim that the Court should:

                     —

                     annul the ECB’s decision of 1 March 2019 to classify PNB Banka as a significant entity;

                     —

                     order the defendant to pay the costs.

            Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                     1.

                     First plea in law, alleging that the ECB incorrectly assumed that Article 6(5)(b) of the SSM Regulation (1) envisages a classification decision.

                                 —

                                 The applicants submit that Article 6(5)(b) of the SSM Regulation merely authorises the ECB to exercise itself all the relevant powers of a national competent authority. Article 39(5), second sentence, of the SSM Framework Regulation (2) cannot change the nature of the decision pursuant to Article 6(5)(b) of the SSM Regulation. Were the Court to conclude that Article 39(5), second sentence, of the SSM Framework Regulation changes the nature of that decision, the applicants plead the illegality of the said Article 39(5), second sentence.

                     2.

                     Second plea in law, alleging that that the ECB based its decision on incorrect assumptions as to the conditions and purpose of Article 6(5)(b) of the SSM Regulation and, inter alia, failed to take into account the exceptional nature of a decision pursuant to that provision.

                     3.

                     Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case in order to determine the necessity of a decision pursuant to Article 6(5)(b) of the SSM Regulation.

                     4.

                     Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated several essential procedural requirements.

                     5.

                     Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to exercise its discretion pursuant to Article 6(5)(b) of the SSM Regulation.

                     6.

                     Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality.

                     7.

                     Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditor principle.

                     8.

                     Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment.

                     9.

                     Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

                                 —

                                 The applicants submit that the decision is unclear and therefore creates legal uncertainty and is contrary to the legitimate expectations of PNB Banka based on its prior interactions with the ECB and the Financial and Capital Markets Commission.

                     10.

                     Tenth plea in law, alleging that that the ECB violated Article 19 of the SSM Regulation and recital 75 of its preamble and committed a détournement de pouvoir.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

            (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

            (2)  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (ECB/2014/17) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).


title: Case T-310/19: Action brought on 20 May 2019 — BRF Singapore Foods v EUIPO — Tipiak (SADIA)

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/33

      Action brought on 20 May 2019 — BRF Singapore Foods v EUIPO — Tipiak (SADIA)
      (Case T-310/19)
      (2019/C 246/35)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tipiak (Saint-Aignan de Grand Lieu, France)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SADIA — Application for registration No 12 084 273

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 in Case R 1857/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order Tipiak to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of general EU principles of the sound administration and equal treatment;

                  —

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

                  —

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


title: Case T-313/19: Action brought on 22 May 2019 — Taghani v Commission

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/34

      Action brought on 22 May 2019 — Taghani v Commission
      (Case T-313/19)
      (2019/C 246/36)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Jamal Taghani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the present action admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  annul the contested decisions;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action for annulment, first, of the decision of EPSO of 23 July 2018 rejecting his claim for compensation brought in respect of his participation in competition EPSO/AST/111/10 and, secondly, if necessary, of the decision of 14 February 2019 rejecting his complaint, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and manifest errors of assessment in the defendant’s examination of the three conditions required for the Union to incur non-contractual liability.

                  2.

                  Second plea, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the obligation to state reasons arising therefrom, on the ground that the defendant did not take a position, in the contested decisions, on the argument made in the complaint relating to two conditions required for the Union to incur non-contractual liability, namely the existence of faults and the causal link.


title: Case T-320/19: Action brought on 27 May 2019 — BV v Commission

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/37

      Action brought on 27 May 2019 — BV v Commission
      (Case T-320/19)
      (2019/C 246/39)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: BV (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of 17 September 2018 by which the interest generated on the capital representing his transferred pension rights was not returned to him;

                  —

                  in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging the lack of a legal basis and of reasoning of the contested decision.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(6) of the general provisions for the implementation of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations adopted by the Commission.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging unjust enrichment in favour of the Union caused by the allocation to the budget of the European Union of the amount deducted in respect of the capital appreciation.