# Official Journal C 103/18 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 103 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6218 March 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 103

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6218 March 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2019/C 103/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2019/C 103/02 | Decision of the Court of Justice of 12 February 2019 on official holidays and judicial vacations | 2 |
| 2019/C 103/03 | Assignment of the Vice-President to a Chamber of five Judges | 4 |
| 2019/C 103/04 | Assignment of the Vice-President and the Presidents of Chambers of five Judges to Chambers of three Judges | 4 |
| | General Court |
| 2019/C 103/05 | Decision of the General Court of 27 February 2019 on judicial vacations | 5 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2019/C 103/01

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

1

Court of Justice

2019/C 103/02

Decision of the Court of Justice of 12 February 2019 on official holidays and judicial vacations

2

2019/C 103/03

Assignment of the Vice-President to a Chamber of five Judges

4

2019/C 103/04

Assignment of the Vice-President and the Presidents of Chambers of five Judges to Chambers of three Judges

4

General Court

2019/C 103/05

Decision of the General Court of 27 February 2019 on judicial vacations

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2019/C 103/06 | Case C-221/18 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 — Électricité de France (EDF) v European Commission, French Republic (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — First decision of the European Commission — State aid measure incompatible with the internal market — Annulment by the General Court of the European Union — Confirmation by the Court of Justice of the European Union — Second decision of the Commission — State aid measure incompatible with the internal market — Dismissal of the application for annulment — Article 266 TFEU — Infringement of the principle of res judicata attaching to the first judgment of the General Court — Distortion of evidence — Failure of the General Court to have regard for the Commission’s obligations of diligent and impartial investigation — Failure to state reasons — Classification of the measure — New or existing aid) | 6 |
| 2019/C 103/07 | Case C-561/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 4 September 2018 — Solvay Chemicals GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany | 6 |
| 2019/C 103/08 | Case C-674/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2018 — EM v TMD Friction GmbH | 7 |
| 2019/C 103/09 | Case C-675/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2018 — FL v TMD Friction EsCo GmbH | 9 |
| 2019/C 103/10 | Case C-719/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2018 — Vivendi SA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni | 11 |
| 2019/C 103/11 | Case C-760/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Lasithiou (Greece) lodged on 4 December 2018 — M.V. and Others v Local Authority Municipality of Agios Nikolaos | 12 |
| 2019/C 103/12 | Case C-827/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kamenz (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2018 — MC v ND | 13 |
| 2019/C 103/13 | Case C-17/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 January 2019 — Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures | 14 |
| 2019/C 103/14 | Case C-19/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 11 January 2019 — État belge v Pantochim SA, in liquidation | 15 |
| 2019/C 103/15 | Case C-29/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 January 2019 — ZP v Bundesagentur für Arbeit | 15 |
| 2019/C 103/16 | Case C-30/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 10 January 2019 — Diskrimineringsombudsmannen v Braathens Regional Aviation AB | 16 |
| 2019/C 103/17 | Case C-35/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 21 January 2019 — BU v État belge | 17 |
| 2019/C 103/18 | Case C-46/19 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2019 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 November 2018 in Case T-316/14: Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) v Council | 17 |
| 2019/C 103/19 | Case C-69/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2019 by Credito Fondiario SpA against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) made on 19 November 2018 in Case T-661/16, Credito Fondiario v SRB | 18 |
| 2019/C 103/20 | Case C-157/17: Order of the President of the Court of 12 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other parties: Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs, Loyens Loeff NV | 20 |
| 2019/C 103/21 | Case C-76/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic | 20 |
| 2019/C 103/22 | Case C-77/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic | 20 |
| 2019/C 103/23 | Case C-79/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic | 21 |
| 2019/C 103/24 | Case C-206/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, French Republic | 21 |
| 2019/C 103/25 | Case C-487/18: Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria | 21 |
| 2019/C 103/26 | Case C-685/18: Order of the President of the Court of 21 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Minister for Justice and Equality v ND | 21 |
| | General Court |
| 2019/C 103/27 | Case T-177/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078)) (New varieties of plants — Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78 (11078) — Designation of another examination office — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to state reasons) | 22 |
| 2019/C 103/28 | Case T-487/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Pensions — 2008 Reform — Increase in the rate of contributions — Subsequent pay slips — No act adversely affecting an official — Inadmissibility) | 22 |
| 2019/C 103/29 | Case T-11/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — RK v Council (Civil service — Officials — Article 42c of the Staff Regulations — Placing official on leave in the interests of the service — Equal treatment — Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of age — Manifest error of assessment — Right to be heard — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Responsibility) | 23 |
| 2019/C 103/30 | Case T-117/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Proximus v Council (Public service contracts — Negotiated procedure — Most economically advantageous tender — Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer — Discretion of a contracting authority — Lawfulness of the evaluation method — Principle of sound financial management) | 24 |
| 2019/C 103/31 | Case T-166/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 — EKETA v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sensation contract concluded within the context of the sixth framework programme — Eligible costs — Debit note issued by the defendant for the recovery of sums advanced — Reliability of the time records — Conflict of interests) | 24 |
| 2019/C 103/32 | Case T-198/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 — EKETA v Commission (Arbitration clause — Actibio contract concluded within the context of the seventh framework programme — Eligible costs — Debit note issued by the defendant for the recovery of sums advanced — Reliability of the time records — Conflict of interests) | 25 |
| 2019/C 103/33 | Case T-215/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Pear Technologies v EUIPO — Apple (PEAR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative trade mark PEAR — Earlier EU figurative trade mark depicting an apple — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 26 |
| 2019/C 103/34 | Case T-287/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Swemac Innovation v EUIPO — SWEMAC Medical Appliances (SWEMAC) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SWEMAC — Earlier national company name or trade name SWEMAC Medical Appliances AB — Relative ground for refusal — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court) | 27 |
| 2019/C 103/35 | Case T-290/17: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 –Stavytskyi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Obligation to state reasons — Plea of illegality — Principle of proportionality — Legal basis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle ne bis in idem) | 27 |
| 2019/C 103/36 | Case T-336/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2019 — The GB Foods v EUIPO — Yatecomeré (YATEKOMO) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark YATEKOMO — National figurative mark yatecomeré — Admissibility of new information seeking to substantiate the accuracy of a well-known fact — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 28 |
| 2019/C 103/37 | Case T-461/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — TN v ENISA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Notice of vacancy — Head of Unit post — Inclusion on the reserve list — Acceptance of the offer of employment — Withdrawal of the offer of employment — Conditions of employment — Character references — Article 12 of the CEOS — Manifest error of assessment — Processing of personal data — Right to be heard — Liability) | 29 |
| 2019/C 103/38 | Case T-549/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Duym v Council (Civil service — Officials — Appointment to a post of head of unit — Vacancy notice — Rejection of an application — Appointment of another candidate — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Interests of the service — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of non-discrimination) | 30 |
| 2019/C 103/39 | Case T-559/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Abdulkarim v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Temporal adjustment of the effects of annulment) | 30 |
| 2019/C 103/40 | Case T-580/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Karp v Parliament (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Classification — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Premature complaint — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility — Autonomy of remedies — Non-renewal of a contract as a member of the auxiliary contract staff covering maternity leave — Obligation to state reasons — Successive fixed-term contracts — Abuse of rights — Right to be heard — Liability) | 31 |
| 2019/C 103/41 | Case T-604/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Thun v EUIPO (Fish) (Community design — Registered Community design — Failure to apply for renewal — Removal of the design from the register on expiry of registration — Application for restitutio in integrum — Cumulative conditions — Duty of due care — Delegation of power — Loss of a right) | 32 |
| 2019/C 103/42 | Case T-656/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials — Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL — Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 33 |
| 2019/C 103/43 | Case T-667/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment) | 33 |
| 2019/C 103/44 | Case T-766/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Di-Ka (Lamp) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a lighting fitting — Ground for invalidity — Earlier Community design — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 34 |
| 2019/C 103/45 | Case T-767/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Briloner Leuchten (Lamp) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a light fitting — Ground for invalidity — Earlier design — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 35 |
| 2019/C 103/46 | Case T-785/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Ilhan v EUIPO — Time Gate (BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY — Earlier word mark SAM — Relative ground for refusal — Extinction of rights due to acquiescence — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court — Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 36 |
| 2019/C 103/47 | Case T-789/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — TecAlliance v EUIPO — Siemens (TecDocPower) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark TecDocPower — Earlier EU word and figurative marks TECDOC and TecDoc — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of earlier marks — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 36 |
| 2019/C 103/48 | Case T-800/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Brown Street Holdings v EUIPO — Enesan (FIGHT LIFE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark FIGHT LIFE — Earlier EU word mark FIGHT FOR LIFE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 37 |
| 2019/C 103/49 | Case T-79/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Bekat v EUIPO — Borbet (ARBET) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative EU mark ARBET — Prior national word mark BORBET — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 38 |
| 2019/C 103/50 | Case T-88/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (ARMONIE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark ARMONIE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 38 |
| 2019/C 103/51 | Case T-97/18: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — DeepMind Technologies v EUIPO (STREAMS) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark STREAMS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Previous EUIPO practice) | 39 |
| 2019/C 103/52 | Case T-181/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Multifit v EUIPO (TAKE CARE) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark TAKE CARE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 39 |
| 2019/C 103/53 | Case T-256/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Arezzo Indústria e Comércio v EUIPO (SCHUTZ) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark SCHUTZ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 40 |
| 2019/C 103/54 | Case T-332/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (MARRY ME) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MARRY ME — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 40 |
| 2019/C 103/55 | Case T-333/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (marry me) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark marry me — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 41 |
| 2019/C 103/56 | Case T-427/18: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark SATISFYERMEN — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Duty to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 42 |
| 2019/C 103/57 | Case T-149/16: Order of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission (Action for annulment — Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility — Transport sector for the period 2014-2020 — Lis pendens — Inadmissibility) | 42 |
| 2019/C 103/58 | Case T-624/16 TO: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2019 — L’Huillier v Gollnisch and Parliament (Third-party proceedings — Rejection of the third-party applicant’s application to intervene — Inadmissibility) | 43 |
| 2019/C 103/59 | Case T-687/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank v ECB (Application for interim measures — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency) | 43 |
| 2019/C 103/60 | Case T-735/18: Action brought on 14 December 2018 — Aquind/ACER | 44 |
| 2019/C 103/61 | Case T-741/18: Action brought on 18 December 2018 — ZZ v ECB | 46 |
| 2019/C 103/62 | Case T-763/18: Action brought on 30 December 2018 — Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi v European Commission | 47 |
| 2019/C 103/63 | Case T-13/19: Action brought on 8 January 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission | 48 |
| 2019/C 103/64 | Case T-25/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — AD v ECHA | 49 |
| 2019/C 103/65 | Case T-31/19: Action brought on 15 January 2019 — AF v FRA | 50 |
| 2019/C 103/66 | Case T-32/19: Action brought on 17 January 2019 — Harrington Padrón v Council | 50 |
| 2019/C 103/67 | Case T-38/19: Action brought on 21 January 2019 — Portugal v Commission | 51 |
| 2019/C 103/68 | Case T-43/19: Action brought on 24 January 2019 WV v EEAS | 52 |
| 2019/C 103/69 | Case T-47/19: Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Dansk Erhverv v Commission | 53 |
| 2019/C 103/70 | Case T-48/19: Action brought on 28 January 2019 — smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things) | 54 |
| 2019/C 103/71 | Case T-49/19: Action brought on 28 January 2019 — View v EUIPO (CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS) | 55 |
| 2019/C 103/72 | Case T-50/19: Action brought on 28 January 2019 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday) | 55 |
| 2019/C 103/73 | Case T-51/19: Action brought on 29 January 2019 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret (apiheal) | 57 |
| 2019/C 103/74 | Case T-53/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — SBS Bilimsel Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Laboratorios Ern (apiheal) | 58 |
| 2019/C 103/75 | Case T-56/17: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO and Others v SEAE | 59 |
| 2019/C 103/76 | Case T-479/17: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO v EEAS | 59 |
| 2019/C 103/77 | Case T-727/17: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PP and Others v EEAS | 59 |
| 2019/C 103/78 | Case T-180/18: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — VJ v EEAS | 60 |
| 2019/C 103/79 | Case T-494/18: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO v EEAS | 60 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2019/C 103/06

Case C-221/18 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 — Électricité de France (EDF) v European Commission, French Republic (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — First decision of the European Commission — State aid measure incompatible with the internal market — Annulment by the General Court of the European Union — Confirmation by the Court of Justice of the European Union — Second decision of the Commission — State aid measure incompatible with the internal market — Dismissal of the application for annulment — Article 266 TFEU — Infringement of the principle of res judicata attaching to the first judgment of the General Court — Distortion of evidence — Failure of the General Court to have regard for the Commission’s obligations of diligent and impartial investigation — Failure to state reasons — Classification of the measure — New or existing aid)

6

2019/C 103/07

Case C-561/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 4 September 2018 — Solvay Chemicals GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

6

2019/C 103/08

Case C-674/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2018 — EM v TMD Friction GmbH

7

2019/C 103/09

Case C-675/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2018 — FL v TMD Friction EsCo GmbH

9

2019/C 103/10

Case C-719/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2018 — Vivendi SA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

11

2019/C 103/11

Case C-760/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Lasithiou (Greece) lodged on 4 December 2018 — M.V. and Others v Local Authority Municipality of Agios Nikolaos

12

2019/C 103/12

Case C-827/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kamenz (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2018 — MC v ND

13

2019/C 103/13

Case C-17/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 January 2019 — Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures

14

2019/C 103/14

Case C-19/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 11 January 2019 — État belge v Pantochim SA, in liquidation

15

2019/C 103/15

Case C-29/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 January 2019 — ZP v Bundesagentur für Arbeit

15

2019/C 103/16

Case C-30/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 10 January 2019 — Diskrimineringsombudsmannen v Braathens Regional Aviation AB

16

2019/C 103/17

Case C-35/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 21 January 2019 — BU v État belge

17

2019/C 103/18

Case C-46/19 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2019 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 November 2018 in Case T-316/14: Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) v Council

17

2019/C 103/19

Case C-69/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2019 by Credito Fondiario SpA against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) made on 19 November 2018 in Case T-661/16, Credito Fondiario v SRB

Credito Fondiario

SRB

18

2019/C 103/20

Case C-157/17: Order of the President of the Court of 12 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other parties: Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs, Loyens Loeff NV

20

2019/C 103/21

Case C-76/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic

20

2019/C 103/22

Case C-77/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic

20

2019/C 103/23

Case C-79/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic

21

2019/C 103/24

Case C-206/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, French Republic

21

2019/C 103/25

Case C-487/18: Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

21

2019/C 103/26

Case C-685/18: Order of the President of the Court of 21 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Minister for Justice and Equality v ND

21

General Court

2019/C 103/27

Case T-177/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078)) (New varieties of plants — Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78 (11078) — Designation of another examination office — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to state reasons)

22

2019/C 103/28

Case T-487/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Pensions — 2008 Reform — Increase in the rate of contributions — Subsequent pay slips — No act adversely affecting an official — Inadmissibility)

22

2019/C 103/29

Case T-11/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — RK v Council (Civil service — Officials — Article 42c of the Staff Regulations — Placing official on leave in the interests of the service — Equal treatment — Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of age — Manifest error of assessment — Right to be heard — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Responsibility)

23

2019/C 103/30

Case T-117/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Proximus v Council (Public service contracts — Negotiated procedure — Most economically advantageous tender — Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer — Discretion of a contracting authority — Lawfulness of the evaluation method — Principle of sound financial management)

24

2019/C 103/31

Case T-166/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 — EKETA v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sensation contract concluded within the context of the sixth framework programme — Eligible costs — Debit note issued by the defendant for the recovery of sums advanced — Reliability of the time records — Conflict of interests)

24

2019/C 103/32

Case T-198/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 — EKETA v Commission (Arbitration clause — Actibio contract concluded within the context of the seventh framework programme — Eligible costs — Debit note issued by the defendant for the recovery of sums advanced — Reliability of the time records — Conflict of interests)

25

2019/C 103/33

Case T-215/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Pear Technologies v EUIPO — Apple (PEAR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative trade mark PEAR — Earlier EU figurative trade mark depicting an apple — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

26

2019/C 103/34

Case T-287/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Swemac Innovation v EUIPO — SWEMAC Medical Appliances (SWEMAC) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SWEMAC — Earlier national company name or trade name SWEMAC Medical Appliances AB — Relative ground for refusal — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court)

27

2019/C 103/35

Case T-290/17: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 –Stavytskyi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Obligation to state reasons — Plea of illegality — Principle of proportionality — Legal basis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle ne bis in idem)

27

2019/C 103/36

Case T-336/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2019 — The GB Foods v EUIPO — Yatecomeré (YATEKOMO) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark YATEKOMO — National figurative mark yatecomeré — Admissibility of new information seeking to substantiate the accuracy of a well-known fact — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

28

2019/C 103/37

Case T-461/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — TN v ENISA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Notice of vacancy — Head of Unit post — Inclusion on the reserve list — Acceptance of the offer of employment — Withdrawal of the offer of employment — Conditions of employment — Character references — Article 12 of the CEOS — Manifest error of assessment — Processing of personal data — Right to be heard — Liability)

29

2019/C 103/38

Case T-549/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Duym v Council (Civil service — Officials — Appointment to a post of head of unit — Vacancy notice — Rejection of an application — Appointment of another candidate — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Interests of the service — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of non-discrimination)

30

2019/C 103/39

Case T-559/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Abdulkarim v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Temporal adjustment of the effects of annulment)

30

2019/C 103/40

Case T-580/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Karp v Parliament (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Classification — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Premature complaint — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility — Autonomy of remedies — Non-renewal of a contract as a member of the auxiliary contract staff covering maternity leave — Obligation to state reasons — Successive fixed-term contracts — Abuse of rights — Right to be heard — Liability)

31

2019/C 103/41

Case T-604/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Thun v EUIPO (Fish) (Community design — Registered Community design — Failure to apply for renewal — Removal of the design from the register on expiry of registration — Application for restitutio in integrum — Cumulative conditions — Duty of due care — Delegation of power — Loss of a right)

32

2019/C 103/42

Case T-656/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials — Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL — Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

33

2019/C 103/43

Case T-667/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment)

33

2019/C 103/44

Case T-766/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Di-Ka (Lamp) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a lighting fitting — Ground for invalidity — Earlier Community design — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

34

2019/C 103/45

Case T-767/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Briloner Leuchten (Lamp) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a light fitting — Ground for invalidity — Earlier design — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

35

2019/C 103/46

Case T-785/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Ilhan v EUIPO — Time Gate (BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY — Earlier word mark SAM — Relative ground for refusal — Extinction of rights due to acquiescence — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court — Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

36

2019/C 103/47

Case T-789/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — TecAlliance v EUIPO — Siemens (TecDocPower) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark TecDocPower — Earlier EU word and figurative marks TECDOC and TecDoc — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of earlier marks — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

36

2019/C 103/48

Case T-800/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Brown Street Holdings v EUIPO — Enesan (FIGHT LIFE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark FIGHT LIFE — Earlier EU word mark FIGHT FOR LIFE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

37

2019/C 103/49

Case T-79/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Bekat v EUIPO — Borbet (ARBET) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative EU mark ARBET — Prior national word mark BORBET — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

38

2019/C 103/50

Case T-88/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (ARMONIE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark ARMONIE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

38

2019/C 103/51

Case T-97/18: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — DeepMind Technologies v EUIPO (STREAMS) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark STREAMS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Previous EUIPO practice)

39

2019/C 103/52

Case T-181/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Multifit v EUIPO (TAKE CARE) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark TAKE CARE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

39

2019/C 103/53

Case T-256/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Arezzo Indústria e Comércio v EUIPO (SCHUTZ) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark SCHUTZ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

40

2019/C 103/54

Case T-332/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (MARRY ME) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MARRY ME — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

40

2019/C 103/55

Case T-333/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (marry me) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark marry me — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

41

2019/C 103/56

Case T-427/18: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark SATISFYERMEN — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Duty to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

42

2019/C 103/57

Case T-149/16: Order of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission (Action for annulment — Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility — Transport sector for the period 2014-2020 — Lis pendens — Inadmissibility)

42

2019/C 103/58

Case T-624/16 TO: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2019 — L’Huillier v Gollnisch and Parliament (Third-party proceedings — Rejection of the third-party applicant’s application to intervene — Inadmissibility)

43

2019/C 103/59

Case T-687/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank v ECB (Application for interim measures — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

43

2019/C 103/60

Case T-735/18: Action brought on 14 December 2018 — Aquind/ACER

44

2019/C 103/61

Case T-741/18: Action brought on 18 December 2018 — ZZ v ECB

46

2019/C 103/62

Case T-763/18: Action brought on 30 December 2018 — Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi v European Commission

47

2019/C 103/63

Case T-13/19: Action brought on 8 January 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission

48

2019/C 103/64

Case T-25/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — AD v ECHA

49

2019/C 103/65

Case T-31/19: Action brought on 15 January 2019 — AF v FRA

50

2019/C 103/66

Case T-32/19: Action brought on 17 January 2019 — Harrington Padrón v Council

50

2019/C 103/67

Case T-38/19: Action brought on 21 January 2019 — Portugal v Commission

51

2019/C 103/68

Case T-43/19: Action brought on 24 January 2019 WV v EEAS

52

2019/C 103/69

Case T-47/19: Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Dansk Erhverv v Commission

53

2019/C 103/70

Case T-48/19: Action brought on 28 January 2019 — smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things)

54

2019/C 103/71

Case T-49/19: Action brought on 28 January 2019 — View v EUIPO (CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS)

55

2019/C 103/72

Case T-50/19: Action brought on 28 January 2019 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday)

55

2019/C 103/73

Case T-51/19: Action brought on 29 January 2019 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret (apiheal)

57

2019/C 103/74

Case T-53/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — SBS Bilimsel Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Laboratorios Ern (apiheal)

58

2019/C 103/75

Case T-56/17: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO and Others v SEAE

59

2019/C 103/76

Case T-479/17: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO v EEAS

59

2019/C 103/77

Case T-727/17: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PP and Others v EEAS

59

2019/C 103/78

Case T-180/18: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — VJ v EEAS

60

2019/C 103/79

Case T-494/18: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO v EEAS

60

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2019/C 103/01)

Last publication

OJ C 93, 11.3.2019

Past publications

OJ C 82, 4.3.2019

OJ C 72, 25.2.2019

OJ C 65, 18.2.2019

OJ C 54, 11.2.2019

OJ C 44, 4.2.2019

OJ C 35, 28.1.2019

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---

Court of Justice

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/2

---

DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

of 12 February 2019

on official holidays and judicial vacations

(2019/C 103/02)

THE COURT

having regard to Article 24(2), (4) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure,

whereas it is necessary, in accordance with that provision, to establish the list of official holidays and to set the dates of the judicial vacations,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The list of official holidays within the meaning of Article 24(4) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure is established as follows:

| — | New Year’s Day, |
| --- | --- |

—

New Year’s Day,

| — | Easter Monday, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter Monday,

| — | 1 May, |
| --- | --- |

—

1 May,

| — | Ascension, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ascension,

| — | Whit Monday, |
| --- | --- |

—

Whit Monday,

| — | 23 June, |
| --- | --- |

—

23 June,

| — | 15 August, |
| --- | --- |

—

15 August,

| — | 1 November, |
| --- | --- |

—

1 November,

| — | 25 December, |
| --- | --- |

—

25 December,

| — | 26 December. |
| --- | --- |

—

26 December.

Article 2

For the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 24(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:

| — | Christmas 2019: from Monday 23 December 2019 to Sunday 12 January 2020 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Christmas 2019: from Monday 23 December 2019 to Sunday 12 January 2020 inclusive,

| — | Easter 2020: from Monday 6 April 2020 to Sunday 19 April 2020 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter 2020: from Monday 6 April 2020 to Sunday 19 April 2020 inclusive,

| — | Summer 2020: from Thursday 16 July 2020 to Monday 31 August 2020 inclusive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Summer 2020: from Thursday 16 July 2020 to Monday 31 August 2020 inclusive.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Luxembourg, 12 February 2019.

A. CALOT ESCOBAR

Registrar

K. LENAERTS

President

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/4

---

Assignment of the Vice-President to a Chamber of five Judges

(2019/C 103/03)

At its general meeting of 10 October 2018, the Court decided to assign the Vice-President to a Chamber of five Judges for all cases in which she performs the duties of Judge Rapporteur and which are allocated by the Court to such a chamber.

By application of Article 11(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court therefore decides to assign Ms Silva de Lapuerta to the First Chamber, for the period from 10 October 2018 to 6 October 2021.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/4

---

Assignment of the Vice-President and the Presidents of Chambers of five Judges to Chambers of three Judges

(2019/C 103/04)

At its general meeting of 26 February 2019, the Court decided, in addition, to assign the Vice-President and the Presidents of Chambers of five Judges to Chambers of three Judges for all cases in which they perform the duties of Judge Rapporteur and which are allocated by the Court to such a chamber.

By application of Article 11(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court therefore decides to assign Ms Silva de Lapuerta and Mr Bonichot to the Sixth Chamber, Mr Arabadjiev to the Seventh Chamber, Ms Prechal to the Eighth Chamber, Mr Vilaras to the Ninth Chamber and Mr Regan to the Tenth Chamber, for the period from 26 February 2019 to 6 October 2021.

---

General Court

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/5

---

DECISION OF THE GENERAL COURT

of 27 February 2019

on judicial vacations

(2019/C 103/05)

THE GENERAL COURT

Having regard to Article 41(2) of the Rules of Procedure,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the judicial year beginning on 1 September 2019, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 41(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:

| — | Christmas 2019: from Monday 23 December 2019 to Sunday 12 January 2020 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Christmas 2019: from Monday 23 December 2019 to Sunday 12 January 2020 inclusive,

| — | Easter 2020: from Monday 6 April 2020 to Sunday 19 April 2020 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter 2020: from Monday 6 April 2020 to Sunday 19 April 2020 inclusive,

| — | Summer 2020: from Thursday 16 July 2020 to Monday 31 August 2020 inclusive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Summer 2020: from Thursday 16 July 2020 to Monday 31 August 2020 inclusive.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Luxembourg, 27 February 2019.

Registrar

E. COULON

President

M. JAEGER

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/6

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 — Électricité de France (EDF) v European Commission, French Republic

(Case C-221/18 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - First decision of the European Commission - State aid measure incompatible with the internal market - Annulment by the General Court of the European Union - Confirmation by the Court of Justice of the European Union - Second decision of the Commission - State aid measure incompatible with the internal market - Dismissal of the application for annulment - Article 266 TFEU - Infringement of the principle of res judicata attaching to the first judgment of the General Court - Distortion of evidence - Failure of the General Court to have regard for the Commission’s obligations of diligent and impartial investigation - Failure to state reasons - Classification of the measure - New or existing aid))

(2019/C 103/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Électricité de France (EDF) (represented by: M. Debroux, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and D. Recchia, acting as Agents), French Republic

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Électricité de France (EDF) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Électricité de France (EDF) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 4 September 2018 — Solvay Chemicals GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-561/18)

(2019/C 103/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Solvay Chemicals GmbH

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

By order of 6 February 2019, the Court (First Chamber) ruled as follows:

The second subparagraph of Article 49(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) and point 20(B) of Annex IV to that regulation are invalid in so far as they systematically include the carbon dioxide (CO2) transferred to another installation for the production of precipitated calcium carbonate in the emissions of the installation for production of soda ash, regardless of whether that CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 181, p. 30.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2018 — EM v TMD Friction GmbH

(Case C-674/18)

(2019/C 103/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EM

Defendant: TMD Friction GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 3(4) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses allow — in the event of a transfer of a business after the opening of insolvency proceedings regarding the assets of the transferor of the business under national law, which, in principle, also requires the application of Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/23/EC to employees’ rights to old-age, invalidity or survivors’ benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes — a restriction to the effect that the transferee is not liable for pension entitlements based on periods of service completed prior to the opening of the insolvency proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 3(4) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses allow — in the event of a transfer of a business after the opening of insolvency proceedings regarding the assets of the transferor of the business under national law, which, in principle, also requires the application of Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/23/EC to employees’ rights to old-age, invalidity or survivors’ benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes — a restriction to the effect that the transferee is not liable for pension entitlements based on periods of service completed prior to the opening of the insolvency proceedings?

| 2. | If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative:
  In the event of a transfer of business after insolvency proceedings regarding the assets of the transferor of the business have been opened, are the measures necessary pursuant to Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC to protect the interests of employees in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes based on the level of protection required by Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative:

In the event of a transfer of business after insolvency proceedings regarding the assets of the transferor of the business have been opened, are the measures necessary pursuant to Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC to protect the interests of employees in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes based on the level of protection required by Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer?

| 3. | If the second question referred is answered in the negative:
  Is Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC to be interpreted to mean that the measures necessary to protect the interests of employees in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes have been taken if the national law provides that






  — | the obligation to provide the employee covered by the transfer of a business in insolvency proceedings with old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes in the future is transferred to the transferee of the business, |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If the second question referred is answered in the negative:

Is Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC to be interpreted to mean that the measures necessary to protect the interests of employees in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes have been taken if the national law provides that

—

the obligation to provide the employee covered by the transfer of a business in insolvency proceedings with old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes in the future is transferred to the transferee of the business,

| — | the transferee of the business is liable for future pension entitlements to the extent that they are based on periods of service completed after insolvency proceedings are opened, |
| --- | --- |

—

the transferee of the business is liable for future pension entitlements to the extent that they are based on periods of service completed after insolvency proceedings are opened,

| — | in that case, the insolvency insurance institution designated under national law does not have to assume responsibility for the part of the future pension entitlements that was acquired before the insolvency proceedings had been opened, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in that case, the insolvency insurance institution designated under national law does not have to assume responsibility for the part of the future pension entitlements that was acquired before the insolvency proceedings had been opened, and

| — | the employee may assert, in the insolvency proceedings of the transferor, the value of the part of the future pension entitlements that was acquired before the insolvency proceedings had been opened? |
| --- | --- |

—

the employee may assert, in the insolvency proceedings of the transferor, the value of the part of the future pension entitlements that was acquired before the insolvency proceedings had been opened?

| 4. | If, in the event of a transfer of a business, the national law also requires the application of Article 3 and Article 4 of Directive 2001/23/EC during insolvency proceedings, is Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/23/EC applicable to employees’ pension entitlements under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes that did arise before the insolvency proceedings had been opened, but do not lead to benefit entitlements on the part of the employee until the occurrence of the covered event and therefore not until a later point in time? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If, in the event of a transfer of a business, the national law also requires the application of Article 3 and Article 4 of Directive 2001/23/EC during insolvency proceedings, is Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/23/EC applicable to employees’ pension entitlements under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes that did arise before the insolvency proceedings had been opened, but do not lead to benefit entitlements on the part of the employee until the occurrence of the covered event and therefore not until a later point in time?

| 5. | If the second or the fourth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
  Does the minimum level of protection to be provided by the Member States pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer also cover the obligation to guarantee pension entitlements that were not yet statutorily vested under national law when the insolvency proceedings were opened and that are only statutorily vested in the first place because the employment relationship is not terminated in connection with the insolvency? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the second or the fourth question referred is answered in the affirmative:

Does the minimum level of protection to be provided by the Member States pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer also cover the obligation to guarantee pension entitlements that were not yet statutorily vested under national law when the insolvency proceedings were opened and that are only statutorily vested in the first place because the employment relationship is not terminated in connection with the insolvency?

| 6. | If the fifth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
  Under what circumstances can a former employee’s losses suffered in respect of occupational old-age pension benefits as a result of the insolvency of the employee be regarded as manifestly disproportionate and therefore oblige the Member States to ensure a minimum degree of protection against such losses pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC, even though the employee will receive at least half of the benefits that will arise from his acquired pension rights? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the fifth question referred is answered in the affirmative:

Under what circumstances can a former employee’s losses suffered in respect of occupational old-age pension benefits as a result of the insolvency of the employee be regarded as manifestly disproportionate and therefore oblige the Member States to ensure a minimum degree of protection against such losses pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC, even though the employee will receive at least half of the benefits that will arise from his acquired pension rights?

| 7. | If the fifth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
  Is the protection for employees’ pension entitlements that is necessary pursuant to Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC or Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/94/EC — and is equivalent to that of Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC — also accorded if it does not arise from national law, but rather only from direct application of Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC? |
| --- | --- |

7.

If the fifth question referred is answered in the affirmative:

Is the protection for employees’ pension entitlements that is necessary pursuant to Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC or Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/94/EC — and is equivalent to that of Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC — also accorded if it does not arise from national law, but rather only from direct application of Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC?

| 8. | If the seventh question referred is answered in the affirmative:
  Does Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC also have direct effect, such that it can be asserted before the national court by an individual employee if, although he receives at least half of the benefits arising out of his accrued pension rights, his losses suffered as a result of the insolvency of the employer are nevertheless to be regarded as disproportionate? |
| --- | --- |

8.

If the seventh question referred is answered in the affirmative:

Does Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC also have direct effect, such that it can be asserted before the national court by an individual employee if, although he receives at least half of the benefits arising out of his accrued pension rights, his losses suffered as a result of the insolvency of the employer are nevertheless to be regarded as disproportionate?

| 9. | If the eighth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
  Is an institution organised under private law that the Member State has designated — in a manner that is binding on employers — as an insolvency insurance institution for occupational pensions that is subject to State supervision of financial services and levies the contributions required for insolvency insurance from employers under public law, and, like an authority, can establish the conditions for enforcement by way of an administrative act, a public body of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

9.

If the eighth question referred is answered in the affirmative:

Is an institution organised under private law that the Member State has designated — in a manner that is binding on employers — as an insolvency insurance institution for occupational pensions that is subject to State supervision of financial services and levies the contributions required for insolvency insurance from employers under public law, and, like an authority, can establish the conditions for enforcement by way of an administrative act, a public body of the Member State?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2018 — FL v TMD Friction EsCo GmbH

(Case C-675/18)

(2019/C 103/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FL

Defendant: TMD Friction EsCo GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 3(4) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses allow — in the event of a transfer of a business after the opening of insolvency proceedings regarding the assets of the transferor of the business under national law, which, in principle, also requires the application of Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/23/EC to employees’ rights to old-age, invalidity or survivors’ benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes — a restriction to the effect that the transferee is not liable for pension entitlements based on periods of service completed prior to the opening of the insolvency proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 3(4) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses allow — in the event of a transfer of a business after the opening of insolvency proceedings regarding the assets of the transferor of the business under national law, which, in principle, also requires the application of Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/23/EC to employees’ rights to old-age, invalidity or survivors’ benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes — a restriction to the effect that the transferee is not liable for pension entitlements based on periods of service completed prior to the opening of the insolvency proceedings?

| 2. | If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative:
  In the event of a transfer of business after insolvency proceedings regarding the assets of the transferor of the business have been opened, are the measures necessary pursuant to Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC to protect the interests of employees in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes based on the level of protection required by Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative:

In the event of a transfer of business after insolvency proceedings regarding the assets of the transferor of the business have been opened, are the measures necessary pursuant to Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC to protect the interests of employees in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes based on the level of protection required by Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer?

| 3. | If the second question referred is answered in the negative:
  Is Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC to be interpreted to mean that the measures necessary to protect the interests of employees in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes have been taken if the national law provides that






  — | the obligation to provide the employee covered by the transfer of a business in insolvency proceedings with old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes in the future is transferred to the transferee of the business, |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If the second question referred is answered in the negative:

Is Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC to be interpreted to mean that the measures necessary to protect the interests of employees in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes have been taken if the national law provides that

—

the obligation to provide the employee covered by the transfer of a business in insolvency proceedings with old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes in the future is transferred to the transferee of the business,

| — | the transferee of the business is liable for pension entitlements, the amount of which is determined, inter alia, on the basis of the length of service and the remuneration upon the occurrence of the covered event, to the extent that they are based on periods of service completed after insolvency proceedings are opened, |
| --- | --- |

—

the transferee of the business is liable for pension entitlements, the amount of which is determined, inter alia, on the basis of the length of service and the remuneration upon the occurrence of the covered event, to the extent that they are based on periods of service completed after insolvency proceedings are opened,

| — | in that case, the insolvency insurance institution designated under national law does not have to assume responsibility for the part of the pension entitlements accrued before the insolvency proceedings were opened to the extent the amount of those entitlements is calculated on the basis of the remuneration received by the employee as at the date on which the insolvency proceedings were opened, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in that case, the insolvency insurance institution designated under national law does not have to assume responsibility for the part of the pension entitlements accrued before the insolvency proceedings were opened to the extent the amount of those entitlements is calculated on the basis of the remuneration received by the employee as at the date on which the insolvency proceedings were opened, and

| — | neither the transferee nor the insolvency insurance institution is liable for the increases in the pension entitlements that arise due to increases in remuneration after the insolvency proceedings have been opened, but in respect of periods of service completed before that point in time, |
| --- | --- |

—

neither the transferee nor the insolvency insurance institution is liable for the increases in the pension entitlements that arise due to increases in remuneration after the insolvency proceedings have been opened, but in respect of periods of service completed before that point in time,

| — | the employee may assert, however, this difference in the value of his entitlements in the insolvency proceedings of the transferor? |
| --- | --- |

—

the employee may assert, however, this difference in the value of his entitlements in the insolvency proceedings of the transferor?

| 4. | If, in the event of a transfer of a business, the national law also requires the application of Article 3 and Article 4 of Directive 2001/23/EC during insolvency proceedings, is Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/23/EC applicable to employees’ pension entitlements under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes that did arise before the insolvency proceedings had been opened, but do not lead to benefit entitlements on the part of the employee until the occurrence of the covered event and therefore not until a later point in time? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If, in the event of a transfer of a business, the national law also requires the application of Article 3 and Article 4 of Directive 2001/23/EC during insolvency proceedings, is Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/23/EC applicable to employees’ pension entitlements under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes that did arise before the insolvency proceedings had been opened, but do not lead to benefit entitlements on the part of the employee until the occurrence of the covered event and therefore not until a later point in time?

| 5. | If the second or the fourth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
  Does the minimum level of protection to be provided by the Member States pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer also cover the part of the pension entitlements accrued as at the date on which the insolvency proceedings were opened because the employment relationship is not terminated in connection with the insolvency? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the second or the fourth question referred is answered in the affirmative:

Does the minimum level of protection to be provided by the Member States pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer also cover the part of the pension entitlements accrued as at the date on which the insolvency proceedings were opened because the employment relationship is not terminated in connection with the insolvency?

| 6. | If the fifth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
  Under what circumstances can a former employee’s losses suffered in respect of occupational old-age pension benefits as a result of the insolvency of the employer be regarded as manifestly disproportionate and therefore oblige the Member States to ensure a minimum degree of protection against such losses pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC, even though the former employee receives at least half of the benefits that arise from his acquired pension rights? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the fifth question referred is answered in the affirmative:

Under what circumstances can a former employee’s losses suffered in respect of occupational old-age pension benefits as a result of the insolvency of the employer be regarded as manifestly disproportionate and therefore oblige the Member States to ensure a minimum degree of protection against such losses pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC, even though the former employee receives at least half of the benefits that arise from his acquired pension rights?

| 7. | If the fifth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
  Is the protection for employees’ pension entitlements that is necessary pursuant to Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC or Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/94/EC — and is equivalent to that of Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC — also accorded if it does not arise from national law, but rather only from direct application of Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC? |
| --- | --- |

7.

If the fifth question referred is answered in the affirmative:

Is the protection for employees’ pension entitlements that is necessary pursuant to Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC or Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/94/EC — and is equivalent to that of Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC — also accorded if it does not arise from national law, but rather only from direct application of Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC?

| 8. | If the seventh question referred is answered in the affirmative:
  Does Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC also have direct effect, such that it can be asserted before the national court by an individual employee if, although he receives at least half of the benefits arising out of his accrued pension rights, his losses suffered as a result of the insolvency of the employer are nevertheless to be regarded as disproportionate? |
| --- | --- |

8.

If the seventh question referred is answered in the affirmative:

Does Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC also have direct effect, such that it can be asserted before the national court by an individual employee if, although he receives at least half of the benefits arising out of his accrued pension rights, his losses suffered as a result of the insolvency of the employer are nevertheless to be regarded as disproportionate?

| 9. | If the eighth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
  Is an institution organised under private law that the Member State has designated — in a manner that is binding on employers — as an insolvency insurance institution for occupational pensions that is subject to State supervision of financial services and levies the contributions required for insolvency insurance from employers under public law, and, like an authority, can establish the conditions for enforcement by way of an administrative act, a public body of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

9.

If the eighth question referred is answered in the affirmative:

Is an institution organised under private law that the Member State has designated — in a manner that is binding on employers — as an insolvency insurance institution for occupational pensions that is subject to State supervision of financial services and levies the contributions required for insolvency insurance from employers under public law, and, like an authority, can establish the conditions for enforcement by way of an administrative act, a public body of the Member State?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2018 — Vivendi SA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

(Case C-719/18)

(2019/C 103/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vivendi SA

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Questions referred

| 1. | While Member States have the ability to investigate when undertakings have a dominant position (and to impose specific obligations on those undertakings as a result), is Article 43(11) of Legislative Decree No 177 of 31 July 2005, in the version in force on the date of adoption of the contested decision, according to which ‘undertakings, including through subsidiaries or affiliates, whose revenues in the electronic communications sector, as defined by Article 18 of Legislative Decree No 259 of 1 August 2003, exceed 40 per cent of the total revenues in that sector, may not earn, within the Integrated Communications System, revenues exceeding 10 per cent of that system’ incompatible with EU law and, in particular, with the principle of free movement of capital laid down in Article 63 TFEU?; is Article 43(11) of Legislative Decree No 177 of 31 July 2005 incompatible with EU law and, in particular, with the principle of free movement of capital laid down in Article 63 TFEU, in so far as — through reference to Article 18 of the Codice delle comunicazioni elettroniche (Electronic Communications Code), it restricts the sector in question to the markets susceptible to ex ante regulation, regardless of what commonly happens, which is that information (the pluralism of which the rule is designed to protect) is increasingly conveyed by the use of the Internet, personal computers and mobile telephony, which is sufficient to make it unreasonable to exclude from that sector, in particular, retail mobile telephony services, simply because they operate completely competitively; is Article 43(11) of Legislative Decree No 177 of 31 July 2005 incompatible with EU law and, in particular, with the principle of free movement of capital laid down in Article 63 TFEU, taking into account the fact that the Authority has defined the boundaries of the electronic communications sector, for the purposes of applying Article 43(11) [of Legislative Decree No 177/2005] in the course of the present proceedings, by taking into consideration only the markets where at least one analysis has been carried out since the entry into force of the Electronic Communications Code, that is, from 2003 to date, and with revenues resulting from the last useful assessment, carried out in 2015? |
| --- | --- |

1.

While Member States have the ability to investigate when undertakings have a dominant position (and to impose specific obligations on those undertakings as a result), is Article 43(11) of Legislative Decree No 177 of 31 July 2005, in the version in force on the date of adoption of the contested decision, according to which ‘undertakings, including through subsidiaries or affiliates, whose revenues in the electronic communications sector, as defined by Article 18 of Legislative Decree No 259 of 1 August 2003, exceed 40 per cent of the total revenues in that sector, may not earn, within the Integrated Communications System, revenues exceeding 10 per cent of that system’ incompatible with EU law and, in particular, with the principle of free movement of capital laid down in Article 63 TFEU?; is Article 43(11) of Legislative Decree No 177 of 31 July 2005 incompatible with EU law and, in particular, with the principle of free movement of capital laid down in Article 63 TFEU, in so far as — through reference to Article 18 of the Codice delle comunicazioni elettroniche (Electronic Communications Code), it restricts the sector in question to the markets susceptible to ex ante regulation, regardless of what commonly happens, which is that information (the pluralism of which the rule is designed to protect) is increasingly conveyed by the use of the Internet, personal computers and mobile telephony, which is sufficient to make it unreasonable to exclude from that sector, in particular, retail mobile telephony services, simply because they operate completely competitively; is Article 43(11) of Legislative Decree No 177 of 31 July 2005 incompatible with EU law and, in particular, with the principle of free movement of capital laid down in Article 63 TFEU, taking into account the fact that the Authority has defined the boundaries of the electronic communications sector, for the purposes of applying Article 43(11) [of Legislative Decree No 177/2005] in the course of the present proceedings, by taking into consideration only the markets where at least one analysis has been carried out since the entry into force of the Electronic Communications Code, that is, from 2003 to date, and with revenues resulting from the last useful assessment, carried out in 2015?

| 2. | Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [and] Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) [on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services] to safeguard pluralism and freedom of expression, together with the EU law principle of proportionality, preclude the application of national legislation concerning public broadcasting and audiovisual media services, such as that of Italy, contained in Article 43(11) and (14) [of Legislative Decree No 177/2005], according to which the revenues relevant for determining the second threshold of 10 % can also be applied to undertakings that are not subsidiaries or under a dominant influence, but are even merely ‘affiliates’ within the meaning of Article 2359 of the Codice Civile (Civil Code) (referred to in Article 43(14) [of Legislative Decree No 177/2005]), even if it is not possible to exert any influence on the information being broadcast by those undertakings? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [and] Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) [on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services] to safeguard pluralism and freedom of expression, together with the EU law principle of proportionality, preclude the application of national legislation concerning public broadcasting and audiovisual media services, such as that of Italy, contained in Article 43(11) and (14) [of Legislative Decree No 177/2005], according to which the revenues relevant for determining the second threshold of 10 % can also be applied to undertakings that are not subsidiaries or under a dominant influence, but are even merely ‘affiliates’ within the meaning of Article 2359 of the Codice Civile (Civil Code) (referred to in Article 43(14) [of Legislative Decree No 177/2005]), even if it is not possible to exert any influence on the information being broadcast by those undertakings?

| 3. | Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [and] Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC, together with the principles on safeguarding pluralism of information sources and competition in the broadcasting sector laid down in Directive 2010/13/EU (2) concerning audiovisual media services and in Directive 2002/21/EC, preclude national legislation such as Legislative Decree No 177/2005 which in Article 43(9) and (11) thereof sets very different thresholds (20 % and 10 % respectively) for ‘persons required to be entered in the Register of Communications Operators established under Article 1(6)(a)(5) of Law No 249 of 31 July 1997’ (that is, persons who have received a concession or authorisation under the legislation in force, from the Authority or from other competent administrative authorities, and concessionaires of advertising, however transmitted, publishers, and so on, referred to in Article 43(9)) and for undertakings operating in the electronic communications sector, as defined above (covered by Article 43(11))? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [and] Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC, together with the principles on safeguarding pluralism of information sources and competition in the broadcasting sector laid down in Directive 2010/13/EU (2) concerning audiovisual media services and in Directive 2002/21/EC, preclude national legislation such as Legislative Decree No 177/2005 which in Article 43(9) and (11) thereof sets very different thresholds (20 % and 10 % respectively) for ‘persons required to be entered in the Register of Communications Operators established under Article 1(6)(a)(5) of Law No 249 of 31 July 1997’ (that is, persons who have received a concession or authorisation under the legislation in force, from the Authority or from other competent administrative authorities, and concessionaires of advertising, however transmitted, publishers, and so on, referred to in Article 43(9)) and for undertakings operating in the electronic communications sector, as defined above (covered by Article 43(11))?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

(2)  Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1).

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Lasithiou (Greece) lodged on 4 December 2018 — M.V. and Others v Local Authority Municipality of Agios Nikolaos

(Case C-760/18)

(2019/C 103/11)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikeio Lasithiou (Greece)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M.V. and Others

Defendant: Local Authority Municipality of Agios Nikolaos

Questions referred

| 1. | Would an interpretation of the provisions of national law enacted for the purpose of transposing into national law the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, as set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) that excluded the automatic extension of fixed-term employment contracts of local authority cleansing department workers from the definition of ‘successive’ fixed-term employment contracts within the meaning of clauses 1 and 5(2) of that framework agreement, pursuant to an express legislative provision of national law such as that enacted in Article 167 of Law 4099/2012, on the ground that it involves the extension of an existing employment contract rather than the conclusion in writing of a new fixed-term employment contract, undermine the purpose and the practical effect of that framework agreement? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Would an interpretation of the provisions of national law enacted for the purpose of transposing into national law the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, as set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) that excluded the automatic extension of fixed-term employment contracts of local authority cleansing department workers from the definition of ‘successive’ fixed-term employment contracts within the meaning of clauses 1 and 5(2) of that framework agreement, pursuant to an express legislative provision of national law such as that enacted in Article 167 of Law 4099/2012, on the ground that it involves the extension of an existing employment contract rather than the conclusion in writing of a new fixed-term employment contract, undermine the purpose and the practical effect of that framework agreement?

| 2. | Where a practice is enacted and applied for the employment of local authority cleansing department workers that is contrary to the measures, to prevent the abuse that may arise from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts, provided for under the measure harmonising national legislation with clause 5(1) of the framework agreement, would the obligation incumbent upon a national court to interpret national law in conformity with EU law extend to the application of a provision of national law, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920, as a pre-existing and still applicable equivalent legal measure, within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the framework agreement, that would allow the correct legal classification of successive fixed-term employment contracts used to cover the fixed and permanent needs of local authority cleansing departments as employment contracts of indefinite duration? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Where a practice is enacted and applied for the employment of local authority cleansing department workers that is contrary to the measures, to prevent the abuse that may arise from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts, provided for under the measure harmonising national legislation with clause 5(1) of the framework agreement, would the obligation incumbent upon a national court to interpret national law in conformity with EU law extend to the application of a provision of national law, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920, as a pre-existing and still applicable equivalent legal measure, within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the framework agreement, that would allow the correct legal classification of successive fixed-term employment contracts used to cover the fixed and permanent needs of local authority cleansing departments as employment contracts of indefinite duration?

| 3. | If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, would a provision of constitutional status such as that set out in Article 103(7) and (8) of the Greek Constitution, as revised in 2001, absolutely prohibiting the public sector from converting fixed-term employment contracts, concluded when the above provision was applicable, to contracts of indefinite duration, constitute an excessive restriction upon the obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law, by making it impossible to apply a pre-existing equivalent and still applicable legal measure of national law within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the framework agreement, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920, and by preventing the possibility of successive fixed-term employment contracts used to cover the fixed and permanent needs of local authority cleaning departments from being re-classified as contracts of indefinite duration following a correct classification of the lawful relationship during court proceedings, even if they cover fixed and permanent needs? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, would a provision of constitutional status such as that set out in Article 103(7) and (8) of the Greek Constitution, as revised in 2001, absolutely prohibiting the public sector from converting fixed-term employment contracts, concluded when the above provision was applicable, to contracts of indefinite duration, constitute an excessive restriction upon the obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law, by making it impossible to apply a pre-existing equivalent and still applicable legal measure of national law within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the framework agreement, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920, and by preventing the possibility of successive fixed-term employment contracts used to cover the fixed and permanent needs of local authority cleaning departments from being re-classified as contracts of indefinite duration following a correct classification of the lawful relationship during court proceedings, even if they cover fixed and permanent needs?

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kamenz (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2018 — MC v ND

(Case C-827/18)

(2019/C 103/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Kamenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MC

Defendant: ND

Question referred

Is the disputed principal claim for EUR 535, based on a notarial purchase contract of 10 February 2016 for the purchase of a residential apartment located in Großröhrsdorf, falling under the jurisdiction of the Local Court, Kamenz, which, derived specifically from the transfer of possession and enjoyment to the applicant on 1 April 2016, in accordance with Paragraph 6 of the notarial contract, was still effected by means of the defendant’s tenant’s rental payment on 1 April 2016 in respect of the residential apartment [...] to be regarded as proceedings within the meaning of Article 22 of the Lugano Convention, (1) which have as their object the payment in respect of a right in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, or is the international jurisdiction of a German court to be derived from another provision of the Lugano Convention, or [is] the international jurisdiction of the Swiss court which has jurisdiction in respect of the defendant’s domicile justified (Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 5 No 1 of the Lugano Convention)?

---

(1)  Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 30 October 2007 (‘Lugano II Convention’) (OJ 2009 L 147, p. 5).

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 January 2019 — Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures

(Case C-17/19)

(2019/C 103/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures

Question referred

Must Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community, (1) in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, (2) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, (3) and Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (4) be interpreted as meaning that an E 101 certificate issued by the institution designated by the competent authority of a Member State pursuant to Article 14(1) and (2)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, or an A1 certificate issued pursuant to Article 13 (1) of Regulation No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, binds the courts of the Member State in which the work is carried out when it comes to determining the legislation applicable, not only as regards the social security system but also as regards labour law, where such legislation defines the obligations of employers and the rights of employees, so that, having heard the arguments of the parties, those courts can disregard the above-mentioned certificates only if, on the basis of an assessment of specific evidence, collected in the course of the judicial investigation, which supports the conclusion that the certificates were fraudulently obtained or relied on and which the issuing institution failed to take into account, the said courts identify, within a reasonable timeframe, fraud, comprised, as regards its objective element, by the failure to meet the conditions laid down in either of the aforementioned provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and, as regards its subjective element, by the intention of the accused person to evade or circumvent the conditions for the issue of that certificate, in order to obtain the advantages attaching thereto?

---

(1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 160.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 2005 L 117, p. 1).

(4)  OJ 2004 L 284, p. 1

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 11 January 2019 — État belge v Pantochim SA, in liquidation

(Case C-19/19)

(2019/C 103/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: État belge

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Pantochim SA, in liquidation

Questions referred

| — | Must the provision according to which the claim in respect of which a request for recovery has been made ‘shall be treated as a claim of the Member State in which the requested authority is situated’, as provided for in [the second paragraph of] Article 6 of Council Directive 2008/55/EC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, (1) which replaces Article 6(2) of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, (2) be understood as meaning that the claim of the requesting State is to be treated as being a claim of the requested State, with the result that the claim of the requesting State acquires the status of a claim of the requested State? |
| --- | --- |

—

Must the provision according to which the claim in respect of which a request for recovery has been made ‘shall be treated as a claim of the Member State in which the requested authority is situated’, as provided for in [the second paragraph of] Article 6 of Council Directive 2008/55/EC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, (1) which replaces Article 6(2) of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, (2) be understood as meaning that the claim of the requesting State is to be treated as being a claim of the requested State, with the result that the claim of the requesting State acquires the status of a claim of the requested State?

| — | Must the term ‘privilege’ referred to in Article 10 of Council Directive 2008/55/EC of 26 May 2008, and, before codification, in Article 10 of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976, be understood as the preferential right attached to the claim which confers on it a right of priority over other claims in the event of concurrence, or as any mechanism which results, in the event of concurrence, in the preferential payment of the claim? |
| --- | --- |

—

Must the term ‘privilege’ referred to in Article 10 of Council Directive 2008/55/EC of 26 May 2008, and, before codification, in Article 10 of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976, be understood as the preferential right attached to the claim which confers on it a right of priority over other claims in the event of concurrence, or as any mechanism which results, in the event of concurrence, in the preferential payment of the claim?

| — | Must the option available to the tax authority to carry out, under the conditions laid down by Article 334 of the Programme-Law of 27 November 2004, a set-off in the event of concurrence be regarded as a privilege within the meaning of Article 10 of the abovementioned directives? |
| --- | --- |

—

Must the option available to the tax authority to carry out, under the conditions laid down by Article 334 of the Programme-Law of 27 November 2004, a set-off in the event of concurrence be regarded as a privilege within the meaning of Article 10 of the abovementioned directives?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 150, p. 28.

(2)  OJ 1976 L 73, p. 18. Directive 2008/55/EC indicates (footnote 3) that the original title of Directive 76/308/EEC was amended by Directive 79/1071/EEC (OJ L 331, p. 10), Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) and Directive 2001/44/EC (OJ 2001 L 175, p. 17).

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 January 2019 — ZP v Bundesagentur für Arbeit

(Case C-29/19)

(2019/C 103/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZP

Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 62(1), in conjunction with Article 62(2), of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, when a worker becomes unemployed, the competent institution of the Member State of residence must base the calculation of the benefits on the ‘salary’ that the person concerned ‘received’ in respect of his/her last activity as an employed person in the territory of that institution even in the case where, under the national legislation on unemployment benefits administered by the competent institution, that salary cannot be taken into account due to insufficient duration of receipt and a notional assessment of the benefits is provided for as an alternative? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 62(1), in conjunction with Article 62(2), of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, when a worker becomes unemployed, the competent institution of the Member State of residence must base the calculation of the benefits on the ‘salary’ that the person concerned ‘received’ in respect of his/her last activity as an employed person in the territory of that institution even in the case where, under the national legislation on unemployment benefits administered by the competent institution, that salary cannot be taken into account due to insufficient duration of receipt and a notional assessment of the benefits is provided for as an alternative?

| 2. | Is Article 62(1), in conjunction with Article 62(2), of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that, when a worker becomes unemployed, the competent institution of the Member State of residence must base the calculation of the benefits on the ‘salary’ that the person concerned ‘received’ in respect of his/her last activity as an employed person in the territory of that institution even in the case where, under the national legislation administered by the competent institution, that salary may not be included as a basis for calculating the benefits in the reference period because it was not processed timeously and a notional assessment of the benefit is provided for as an alternative? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 62(1), in conjunction with Article 62(2), of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that, when a worker becomes unemployed, the competent institution of the Member State of residence must base the calculation of the benefits on the ‘salary’ that the person concerned ‘received’ in respect of his/her last activity as an employed person in the territory of that institution even in the case where, under the national legislation administered by the competent institution, that salary may not be included as a basis for calculating the benefits in the reference period because it was not processed timeously and a notional assessment of the benefit is provided for as an alternative?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 10 January 2019 — Diskrimineringsombudsmannen v Braathens Regional Aviation AB

(Case C-30/19)

(2019/C 103/16)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Diskrimineringsombudsmannen

Opposing party: Braathens Regional Aviation AB

Question referred

In a case concerning an infringement of a prohibition laid down in Directive 2000/43/EC (1) where the person wronged claims compensation for discrimination, must a Member State, if so requested by the person wronged, always examine whether discrimination has occurred — and where appropriate conclude that that was the case — regardless of whether the person accused of discrimination has or has not admitted that discrimination has occurred, in order for the requirement in Article 15 for effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions to be regarded as satisfied?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22).

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 21 January 2019 — BU v État belge

(Case C-35/19)

(2019/C 103/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BU

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Does Article 38 § 1(4) of the C.I.R./92 infringe Article 45 et seq. (principle of free movement of workers) and Article 56 et seq. (principle of freedom to provide services) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in so far as it exempts disability allowances from tax only if those allowances are paid by the State Treasury, that is to say, by the Belgian State, in accordance with Belgian legislation, thereby giving rise to discrimination between taxpayers resident in Belgium who receive disability allowances paid by the Belgian State under Belgian legislation, which are exempt from tax, and taxpayers resident in Belgium who receive allowances intended to compensate for a disability paid by another Member State of the European Union, which are not exempt from tax?

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/17

---

Appeal brought on 25 January 2019 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 November 2018 in Case T-316/14: Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) v Council

(Case C-46/19 P)

(2019/C 103/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, S. Van Overmeire, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested judgment of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested judgment of the General Court;

| — | give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal and to dismiss PKK's application; and |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal and to dismiss PKK's application; and

| — | order the PKK to pay the costs of the Council arising from the present appeal and from Case T-316/14. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the PKK to pay the costs of the Council arising from the present appeal and from Case T-316/14.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council submits that the General Court erred in the contested judgment on the following points:

| — | first plea: the General Court wrongly characterised the contested decisions as purely Article 1(6) decisions (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

first plea: the General Court wrongly characterised the contested decisions as purely Article 1(6) decisions (1);

| — | second plea: the General Court wrongly concluded that the U.S. decisions cannot serve as a basis for the initial listing; |
| --- | --- |

—

second plea: the General Court wrongly concluded that the U.S. decisions cannot serve as a basis for the initial listing;

| — | third plea: the General Court wrongly found that the Council had failed to explain why it considered the U.S. decisions and the Order of the UK Home Secretary to be a decision of a competent authority within the meaning of Article 1(4) of CP931; |
| --- | --- |

—

third plea: the General Court wrongly found that the Council had failed to explain why it considered the U.S. decisions and the Order of the UK Home Secretary to be a decision of a competent authority within the meaning of Article 1(4) of CP931;

| — | fourth plea: the General Court wrongly applied the Court of Justice's LTTE (2) judgment, point 55, to the case at hand; |
| --- | --- |

—

fourth plea: the General Court wrongly applied the Court of Justice's LTTE (2) judgment, point 55, to the case at hand;

| — | fifth plea: the General Court wrongly applied LTTE, point 71 to the case at hand; |
| --- | --- |

—

fifth plea: the General Court wrongly applied LTTE, point 71 to the case at hand;

| — | sixth plea: the General Court wrongly applied Article 1(4) of CP931 and point 55 of the LTTE judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

sixth plea: the General Court wrongly applied Article 1(4) of CP931 and point 55 of the LTTE judgment;

| — | seventh plea: the General Court wrongly held that the Council could not respond to the PKK's letter in its own letter of 27 March 2015. |
| --- | --- |

—

seventh plea: the General Court wrongly held that the Council could not respond to the PKK's letter in its own letter of 27 March 2015.

---

(1)  Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001, L 344, p. 93).

(2)  Case C-599/14 P, Council v. LTTE, EU:C2017:583

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/18

---

Appeal brought on 29 January 2019 by Credito Fondiario SpA against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) made on 19 November 2018 in Case T-661/16, Credito Fondiario v SRB

(Case C-69/19 P)

(2019/C 103/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Credito Fondiario SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, F. Iacovone, S. Frazzani and A. Neri, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board

Interveners: Italian Republic, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | order the SRB to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and those of the proceedings in Case T-661/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the SRB to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and those of the proceedings in Case T-661/16;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the order under appeal in so far as it orders Credito Fondiario to pay the costs of the SRB, and make an equitable decision as to the costs of the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the order under appeal in so far as it orders Credito Fondiario to pay the costs of the SRB, and make an equitable decision as to the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that the order under appeal is vitiated by numerous errors of law that amount to both flaws in the judicial reasoning and procedural defects.

I.   Incorrect legal characterisation of the facts. Failure to state reasons.

The General Court was wrong to characterise the facts of the case on the basis of the case-law which provides that, in the absence of publication or notification, the period for bringing an action starts to run from the point in time at which the person concerned acquires precise knowledge of the content and grounds of the decision, provided that he requested the full text thereof within a reasonable period.

In particular, the General Court erred in taking the view that the appellant had acquired knowledge of the two SRB decisions by means of the two notes from the Banca d’Italia of 3 May and 27 May 2016. In addition, the General Court was wrong to find that the appellant did not take steps within a reasonable period to obtain the two decisions of the SRB. The General Court failed to have due regard for the context of legal uncertainty. As a result, the General Court erred in finding that the action had been brought out of time in the light of the specific circumstances of the case.

II.   Incorrect interpretation and application of the case-law on ‘reasonable period’

The General Court’s finding that the action had been brought out of time is also vitiated by misinterpretation (and consequent misapplication to the case in question) of the case-law on the reasonable duration of the period within which the interested party must take steps to obtain the decision to be contested.

III.   Infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence. Infringement and misapplication of Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

Despite having ordered numerous measures of inquiry and measures of organisation of procedure, the General Court did not invite the parties to comment on the matter of whether the action had been brought in time. The General Court addressed the issue of the action being brought out of time for the first time in the order, when it used it as the basis for its decision to dismiss the action, without having placed the parties — in particular the appellant — in a position to make submissions and to be heard on that point.

In addition, the General Court adopted the order under Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure, even though it was clear, for a variety of reasons, that the ground of inadmissibility on which the order for dismissal was based was not manifest.

The General Court thus breached the appellant’s rights of defence.

IV.   Incorrect assessment of the inadmissibility of the application made under Article 277 TFEU

The errors in the assessments by which the General Court established the inadmissibility of the application for annulment automatically render the order unlawful in so far as the General Court found the appellant’s application for a declaration of the unlawful nature of Regulation 2015/63 (1) to be inadmissible. The General Court found that the second request was necessarily ancillary to the principal request for annulment, and that, therefore, the manifest inadmissibility of the action for annulment automatically determined the manifest inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of the unlawful nature of Regulation 2015/63.

V.   Incorrect assessment regarding the order as to costs. Infringement and misapplication of Articles 134 and 135 of the Rules of Procedure

In the alternative, the appellant challenges the order in so far as the General Court ordered it to pay the costs incurred by the SRB.

According to the appellant, equity required the General Court to apply Article 135 of the Rules of Procedure and to apportion the legal costs in accordance with Article 135(1) thereof, or, as appropriate, to order the SRB to pay at least part of the costs incurred by the appellant, in accordance with Article 135(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 12 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other parties: Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs, Loyens Loeff NV

(Case C-157/17) (1)

(2019/C 103/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic

(Case C-76/18) (1)

(2019/C 103/21)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic

(Case C-77/18) (1)

(2019/C 103/22)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/21

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic

(Case C-79/18) (1)

(2019/C 103/23)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/21

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, French Republic

(Case C-206/18) (1)

(2019/C 103/24)

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/21

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-487/18) (1)

(2019/C 103/25)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/21

---

Order of the President of the Court of 21 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Minister for Justice and Equality v ND

(Case C-685/18) (1)

(2019/C 103/26)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.

---

General Court

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078))

(Case T-177/16) (1)

((New varieties of plants - Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78 (11078) - Designation of another examination office - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Obligation to state reasons))

(2019/C 103/27)

Language of the case: German.

Parties

Applicant: Mema GmbH LG (Terlan, Italy) (represented by B. Breitinger and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 15 December 2015 (Case A 001/2015) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 15 December 2015 (Case A 001/2015) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 15 December 2015 (Case A 001/2015) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the CPVO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the CPVO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB

(Case T-487/16) (1)

((Civil service - EIB staff - Pensions - 2008 Reform - Increase in the rate of contributions - Subsequent pay slips - No act adversely affecting an official - Inadmissibility))

(2019/C 103/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), and the 33 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by B. Cortese, C. Cortese and F. Spitaleri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by C. Gómez de la Cruz, T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli and subsequently by T. Gilliams, G. Faedo and J. Klein, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeking, first, annulment of the ‘decisions’ of the EIB, contained in the applicants’ pay slips for February 2011, to increase the rate of their contributions to the pension scheme from 9 % to 10 % and, secondly, an order that the EIB pay a symbolic EUR 1 by way of compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders Mr Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo and the other staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) listed in the Annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the EIB. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo and the other staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) listed in the Annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the EIB.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-58/11 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on1.9.2016).

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — RK v Council

(Case T-11/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Article 42c of the Staff Regulations - Placing official on leave in the interests of the service - Equal treatment - Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of age - Manifest error of assessment - Right to be heard - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Responsibility))

(2019/C 103/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RK (represented initially by: L. Levi and A. Tymen and subsequently by L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by A. Troupiotis and J. A. Steele, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the undated decision of the Council to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service on the basis of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, in so far as necessary, of the decision of 27 September 2016 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant and, secondly, compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders RK to bear 80 % of her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders RK to bear 80 % of her own costs.

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and 20 % of the costs incurred by RK. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and 20 % of the costs incurred by RK.

| 4. | Orders the European Parliament to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Parliament to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Proximus v Council

(Case T-117/17) (1)

((Public service contracts - Negotiated procedure - Most economically advantageous tender - Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer - Discretion of a contracting authority - Lawfulness of the evaluation method - Principle of sound financial management))

(2019/C 103/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Proximus SA/NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Schutyser, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Jaume and S. Cholakova, acting as Agents, and by P. de Bandt, P. Teerlinck and M. Gherghinaru, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Council of 23 December 2016 to award the framework contract for the provision of cybersecurity services [confidential], to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Proximus SA/NV to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Proximus SA/NV to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 — EKETA v Commission

(Case T-166/17) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Sensation contract concluded within the context of the sixth framework programme - Eligible costs - Debit note issued by the defendant for the recovery of sums advanced - Reliability of the time records - Conflict of interests))

(2019/C 103/31)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, A. Katsimerou, O. Verheecke and J. Estrada de Solà, and subsequently A. Katsimerou, A. Kyratsou and O. Verheecke, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration, first, that the request made to the applicant by the Commission in debit note no 3241615291 of 29 November 2016 to reimburse to it the sum of EUR 197 799,52 of the payment received for a study on a research project called Sensation is, in the amount of EUR 179 101,35, unfounded, and, second, that the sum in dispute corresponds to eligible costs which the applicant is not required to reimburse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the European Commission to pay to Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA), first, the sum of EUR 19 522,57 corresponding to eligible staff costs, plus related indirect costs and delayed interest on that sum at the rate of 3,50 % from 12 May 2017 until full payment of that sum, second, delayed interest on the sum of EUR 2 950 at the rate of 3,50 % calculated from 12 May 2017 until 28 November 2017 and, third, delayed interest on the sum of EUR 8 988,21 at the rate of 3,50 % calculated from 12 May 2017 until the payment of that sum on 2 October 2017; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Commission to pay to Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA), first, the sum of EUR 19 522,57 corresponding to eligible staff costs, plus related indirect costs and delayed interest on that sum at the rate of 3,50 % from 12 May 2017 until full payment of that sum, second, delayed interest on the sum of EUR 2 950 at the rate of 3,50 % calculated from 12 May 2017 until 28 November 2017 and, third, delayed interest on the sum of EUR 8 988,21 at the rate of 3,50 % calculated from 12 May 2017 until the payment of that sum on 2 October 2017;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EKETA to bear its own costs and to pay nine tenths of the Commission’s costs, with the latter bearing one tenth of its costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EKETA to bear its own costs and to pay nine tenths of the Commission’s costs, with the latter bearing one tenth of its costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 — EKETA v Commission

(Case T-198/17) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Actibio contract concluded within the context of the seventh framework programme - Eligible costs - Debit note issued by the defendant for the recovery of sums advanced - Reliability of the time records - Conflict of interests))

(2019/C 103/32)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou, A. Kyratsou and O. Verheecke, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration, first, that the request made to the applicant by the Commission in debit note no 3241615335 of 29 November 2016 to reimburse the sum of EUR 38 241 of the payment received for a study on the Actibio project is unfounded in the amount of EUR 9 353,56, and, second, that that sum corresponds to eligible costs which the applicant is not required to reimburse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Pear Technologies v EUIPO — Apple (PEAR)

(Case T-215/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative trade mark PEAR - Earlier EU figurative trade mark depicting an apple - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 103/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pear Technologies Ltd (Macao, China) (represented by: J. Coldham, Solicitor, and E. Himsworth QC)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and G. Tritton, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017 (Case R 860/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Pear Technologies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 January 2017 (Case R 860/2016-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 January 2017 (Case R 860/2016-5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Pear Technologies Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Pear Technologies Ltd;

| 3. | Orders Apple Inc. to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Pear Technologies. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Apple Inc. to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Pear Technologies.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Swemac Innovation v EUIPO — SWEMAC Medical Appliances (SWEMAC)

(Case T-287/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SWEMAC - Earlier national company name or trade name SWEMAC Medical Appliances AB - Relative ground for refusal - Limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court))

(2019/C 103/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Swemac Innovation AB (Linköping, Sweden) (represented by: G. Nygren, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: SWEMAC Medical Appliances AB (Täby, Sweden) (represented by: P. Jonsell, lawyer)

Re:

Application brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2017 (Case R 3000/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Swemac Innovation and SWEMAC Medical Appliances.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Swemac Innovation AB to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by SWEMAC Medical Appliances AB for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Swemac Innovation AB to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by SWEMAC Medical Appliances AB for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 –Stavytskyi v Council

(Case T-290/17) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Obligation to state reasons - Plea of illegality - Principle of proportionality - Legal basis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle ne bis in idem))

(2019/C 103/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edward Stavytskyi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta and L. Baumgart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 34), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 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) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 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 Mr Edward Stavytskyi’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 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) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 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 Mr Edward Stavytskyi’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Stavytskyi; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Stavytskyi;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2019 — The GB Foods v EUIPO — Yatecomeré (YATEKOMO)

(Case T-336/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark YATEKOMO - National figurative mark yatecomeré - Admissibility of new information seeking to substantiate the accuracy of a well-known fact - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 103/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: The GB Foods, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: C. Buganza González and E. Torner Lasalle, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Yatecomeré, SL (Ribadumia, Spain) (represented by: J.C. Erdozain López, V. Arnaiz Medina and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2017 (Case R 1506/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Yatecomeré and The GB Foods.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders The GB Foods, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The GB Foods, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — TN v ENISA

(Case T-461/17) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Notice of vacancy - Head of Unit post - Inclusion on the reserve list - Acceptance of the offer of employment - Withdrawal of the offer of employment - Conditions of employment - Character references - Article 12 of the CEOS - Manifest error of assessment - Processing of personal data - Right to be heard - Liability))

(2019/C 103/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (represented by: A. Ryan, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of 25 November 2016 by which ENISA withdrew the offer of employment made to the applicant for the position of Head of the Administrative Services Unit, as well as the annulment of the decision of 20 April 2017 rejecting his complaint and, secondly, an order that ENISA pay compensation for the material and non-material loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result, inter alia, of the unlawful withdrawal of that offer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders TN to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TN to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Duym v Council

(Case T-549/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Appointment to a post of head of unit - Vacancy notice - Rejection of an application - Appointment of another candidate - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Interests of the service - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of non-discrimination))

(2019/C 103/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Frederik Duym (Oostende, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the decision of the advisory selection board, communicated to the applicant by email of 7 October 2016, rejecting his application in the context of the selection procedure for the Head of the Dutch Language Unit for the Council’s Translation Service, as well as the subsequent decision of the appointing authority of the Council of 20 December 2016 to appoint Ms A. to the post.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Frederik Duym to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Frederik Duym to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Abdulkarim v Council

(Case T-559/17) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Temporal adjustment of the effects of annulment))

(2019/C 103/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially M. Veiga and I. Pouli, then by I. Pouli and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment 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 measures relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, as last amended by 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 and by 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, in so far as they relate to Mr Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, as last amended by 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 and by 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, in so far as they relate to Mr Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim;

| 2. | Orders that the effects of Decisions 2017/917 and 2018/778 be maintained with regard to Mr Abdulkarim until the expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal is lodged during that period, until any dismissal of that appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that the effects of Decisions 2017/917 and 2018/778 be maintained with regard to Mr Abdulkarim until the expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal is lodged during that period, until any dismissal of that appeal;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Abdulkarim. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Abdulkarim.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Karp v Parliament

(Case T-580/17) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Classification - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Premature complaint - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility - Autonomy of remedies - Non-renewal of a contract as a member of the auxiliary contract staff covering maternity leave - Obligation to state reasons - Successive fixed-term contracts - Abuse of rights - Right to be heard - Liability))

(2019/C 103/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kevin Karp (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lambers and R. Ben Ammar, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the European Parliament’s decision classifying the applicant in function group II, at grade 4, step 1, under the contract as a member of the contract staff signed on 12 May 2016 and which expired on 11 November 2016 and, secondly, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm which the applicant has allegedly suffered on account of his classification and the non-renewal of his contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Kevin Karp to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Kevin Karp to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Thun v EUIPO (Fish)

(Case T-604/17) (1)

((Community design - Registered Community design - Failure to apply for renewal - Removal of the design from the register on expiry of registration - Application for restitutio in integrum - Cumulative conditions - Duty of due care - Delegation of power - Loss of a right))

(2019/C 103/41)

Langue of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Thun SpA (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: B. Giordano, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2017 (Case R 1680/2016-3) relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Thun SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Thun SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials)

(Case T-656/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials - Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL - Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 103/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: A. de Sampaio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: 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: Ludwig Manfred Jacob (Heidesheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2017 (Case R 2067/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Mr Jacob.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 July 2017 (Case R 2067/2016-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 July 2017 (Case R 2067/2016-5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA;

| 3. | Orders Mr Ludwig Manfred Jacob to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Ludwig Manfred Jacob to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council

(Case T-667/17) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment))

(2019/C 103/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC (Tal Kurdi, Syria) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1245 of 10 July 2017 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 13), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1241 of 10 July 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 1), 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) No 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 measures relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1245 of 10 July 2017 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, as last amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1241 of 10 July 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as they relate to Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1245 of 10 July 2017 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, as last amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1241 of 10 July 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as they relate to Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC;

| 2. | Orders that the effects of Implementing Decision 2017/1245 and Decision 2018/778 be maintained with regard to Alkarim for Trade and Industry until the expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal is lodged during that period, until any dismissal of that appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that the effects of Implementing Decision 2017/1245 and Decision 2018/778 be maintained with regard to Alkarim for Trade and Industry until the expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal is lodged during that period, until any dismissal of that appeal;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alkarim for Trade and Industry. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alkarim for Trade and Industry.

---

(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Di-Ka (Lamp)

(Case T-766/17) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a lighting fitting - Ground for invalidity - Earlier Community design - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2019/C 103/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eglo Leuchten GmbH (Pill, Austria) (represented by: H. Lauf, 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: Di-Ka Vertriebs GmbH & Co. KG (Arnsberg, Germany) (represented by: M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 (Case R 738/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Eglo Leuchten and Di-Ka Vertriebs.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eglo Leuchten GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eglo Leuchten GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Briloner Leuchten (Lamp)

(Case T-767/17) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a light fitting - Ground for invalidity - Earlier design - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2019/C 103/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eglo Leuchten GmbH (Pill, Austria) (represented by H. Lauf, 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: Briloner Leuchten GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Briloner Leuchten GmbH (Brilon, Germany) (represented by M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017(Case R 746/2016-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Eglo Leuchten and Briloner Leuchten

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eglo Leuchten GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eglo Leuchten GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.18.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Ilhan v EUIPO — Time Gate (BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY)

(Case T-785/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY - Earlier word mark SAM - Relative ground for refusal - Extinction of rights due to acquiescence - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court - Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 103/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ercan Ilhan (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: S. Can, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Time Gate GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2017 (Case R 974/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Time Gate and Mr Ilhan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ercan Ilhan to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ercan Ilhan to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — TecAlliance v EUIPO — Siemens (TecDocPower)

(Case T-789/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark TecDocPower - Earlier EU word and figurative marks TECDOC and TecDoc - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 103/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TecAlliance GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by P. Engemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Siemens AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 (Case R 2433/2016-1) relating to opposition proceedings between TecAlliance and Siemens

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders TecAlliance GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TecAlliance GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Brown Street Holdings v EUIPO — Enesan (FIGHT LIFE)

(Case T-800/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark FIGHT LIFE - Earlier EU word mark FIGHT FOR LIFE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 103/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Brown Street Holdings Ltd (Auckland, New Zealand) (represented by: initially C. Hufnagel, M. Kleespies, J. Clayton-Chen and A. Bender, and subsequently M. Kleespies and A. Bender, lawyers)

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 (Case R 36/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Brown Street Holdings and Enesan.

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 26 September 2017 (Case R 36/2017-2) in so far as it rejected the opposition against the application for registration of the mark applied for in respect of the goods in Class 5 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; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 September 2017 (Case R 36/2017-2) in so far as it rejected the opposition against the application for registration of the mark applied for in respect of the goods in Class 5 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. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Brown Street Holdings Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Brown Street Holdings Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Bekat v EUIPO — Borbet (ARBET)

(Case T-79/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative EU mark ARBET - Prior national word mark BORBET - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Arif Oliver Bekat (Esslingen, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Borbet GmbH (Hallenberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 December 2017 (Case R 1117/2017-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Borbet and Mr Bekat.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Arif Oliver Bekat to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Arif Oliver Bekat to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (ARMONIE)

(Case T-88/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ARMONIE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Gruppo Armonie SpA (Casalgrande, Italy) (represented by: G. Medri, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 (Case R 2063/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ARMONIE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gruppo Armonie SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gruppo Armonie SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — DeepMind Technologies v EUIPO (STREAMS)

(Case T-97/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark STREAMS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Previous EUIPO practice))

(2019/C 103/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DeepMind Technologies Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. St Quintin, Barrister, K. Gilbert and G. Lodge, Solicitors)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 (Case R 35/2017-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign STREAMS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders DeepMind Technologies Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders DeepMind Technologies Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Multifit v EUIPO (TAKE CARE)

(Case T-181/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark TAKE CARE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2018 (Case R 845/2017-5), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign TAKE CARE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Arezzo Indústria e Comércio v EUIPO (SCHUTZ)

(Case T-256/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SCHUTZ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 103/53)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Arezzo Indústria e Comércio, SA (Belo Horizonte, Brazil) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J.M. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2018 (Case R 661/2017-4) relating to registration of the word sign SCHUTZ as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Arezzo Indústria e Comércio, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Arezzo Indústria e Comércio, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (MARRY ME)

(Case T-332/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MARRY ME - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Marry Me Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Theado, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 (Case R 806/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MARRY ME as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Marry Me Group AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Marry Me Group AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (marry me)

(Case T-333/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark marry me - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Marry Me Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Theado, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 (Case R 807/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign marry me as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Marry Me Group AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Marry Me Group AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN)

(Case T-427/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark SATISFYERMEN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Duty to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: André Geske (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: R. Albrecht, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Sesma Merino and S. Hanne, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 (Case R 2603/2017-1), relating to the application for registration of the figurative mark SATISFYERMEN as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr André Geske to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr André Geske to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/42

---

Order of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission

(Case T-149/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility - Transport sector for the period 2014-2020 - Lis pendens - Inadmissibility))

(2019/C 103/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) (represented by: initially by P. Glazener, then by Y. de Vries and D. Coumans and finally by Y. de Vries and J. de Kok, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 final of 31 July 2015 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV and the European Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/43

---

Order of the General Court of 29 January 2019 — L’Huillier v Gollnisch and Parliament

(Case T-624/16 TO) (1)

((Third-party proceedings - Rejection of the third-party applicant’s application to intervene - Inadmissibility))

(2019/C 103/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Third-party applicant: Guillaume L’Huillier (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: A. Varaut, lawyer)

Applicant in the main proceedings: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, lawyer)

Defendant in the main proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and L. Vétillard, acting as Agents)

Re:

Third-party application against the judgment of 7 March 2018, Gollnisch v Parliament (T-624/16, not published, under appeal, EU:T:2018:121).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The third-party application is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The third-party application is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Guillaume L’Huillier shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Guillaume L’Huillier shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

| 3. | Mr Bruno Gollnisch shall bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Bruno Gollnisch shall bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/43

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 21 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank v ECB

(Case T-687/18 R)

((Application for interim measures - Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency))

(2019/C 103/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta’Xbiex, Malta) (represented by: O.H. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Yoo, M. Puidokas and A. Karpf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of an act of the European Central Bank contained in an email of 10 September 2018 by which the ECB required that any communication to it by the applicant be made either through the person appointed by the Malta Financial Services Authority or with the approval of that person.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/44

---

Action brought on 14 December 2018 — Aquind/ACER

(Case T-735/18)

(2019/C 103/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aquind Ltd (Wallsend, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Goldberg, E. White and C. Davis, Solicitors)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s board of appeal Decision A-001-2018 of 17 October 2018 and the defendant’s decision 05/2018 of 19 June 2018 which it upholds; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s board of appeal Decision A-001-2018 of 17 October 2018 and the defendant’s decision 05/2018 of 19 June 2018 which it upholds;

| — | rule on the main legal issues pleaded in the application, relating to: (i) the fact that the defendant and the defendant’s board of appeal erroneously considered that the applicant was required to first apply for and obtain a decision on a cross-border cost allocation before a decision can be taken under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) (the fourth plea); and (ii) the failure of the defendant and the defendant’s board of appeal to take into account the legal impossibility for the applicant to operate the proposed interconnector in France without an exemption (the sixth plea); |
| --- | --- |

—

rule on the main legal issues pleaded in the application, relating to: (i) the fact that the defendant and the defendant’s board of appeal erroneously considered that the applicant was required to first apply for and obtain a decision on a cross-border cost allocation before a decision can be taken under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) (the fourth plea); and (ii) the failure of the defendant and the defendant’s board of appeal to take into account the legal impossibility for the applicant to operate the proposed interconnector in France without an exemption (the sixth plea);

| — | rule on each of the pleas set out in the application individually to avoid further dispute on these contested grounds when the exemption request is reconsidered by the defendant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

rule on each of the pleas set out in the application individually to avoid further dispute on these contested grounds when the exemption request is reconsidered by the defendant; and

| — | order the defendant to pay costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that an error of interpretation of Article 17(1) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed by the allowing policy discretion of the defendant when assessing a request for exemption.
  In the light of the objective criteria in Article 17(1) Regulation No 714/2009, the discretion of the defendant should be limited to examining whether those conditions are met or not. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that an error of interpretation of Article 17(1) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed by the allowing policy discretion of the defendant when assessing a request for exemption.

In the light of the objective criteria in Article 17(1) Regulation No 714/2009, the discretion of the defendant should be limited to examining whether those conditions are met or not.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that an error of interpretation of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed when considering that a request for exemption should be granted only as a measure of last resort.
  It appears that there is no basis for considering that the grant of an exemption should be a measure of last resort. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that an error of interpretation of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed when considering that a request for exemption should be granted only as a measure of last resort.

It appears that there is no basis for considering that the grant of an exemption should be a measure of last resort.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that an error in the assessment of the burden and standard of proof required for an exemption to be granted pursuant to Article 17(1) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed.
  The defendant seems to impose a probatio diabolica to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that an error in the assessment of the burden and standard of proof required for an exemption to be granted pursuant to Article 17(1) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed.

The defendant seems to impose a probatio diabolica to the applicant.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that an error in the interpretation of the relationship between Article 17(1) of Regulation No 714/2009 and Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and consequential reliance on the possibility of the applicant’s interconnector being eligible for a cross-border cost allocation procedure and failure to take account of issues associated with such procedure was committed.






  — | It may not be correct that an exemption can only be granted after it has been demonstrated that a regulatory regime pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation No 347/2013 is not available. That regime should be voluntary and not applicable where an exemption is granted. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that an error in the interpretation of the relationship between Article 17(1) of Regulation No 714/2009 and Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and consequential reliance on the possibility of the applicant’s interconnector being eligible for a cross-border cost allocation procedure and failure to take account of issues associated with such procedure was committed.

—

It may not be correct that an exemption can only be granted after it has been demonstrated that a regulatory regime pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation No 347/2013 is not available. That regime should be voluntary and not applicable where an exemption is granted.

| — | The approach adopted by the defendant could have failed to take into account risks associated with pursuing a regulated regime. |
| --- | --- |

—

The approach adopted by the defendant could have failed to take into account risks associated with pursuing a regulated regime.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the fundamental principle of legal certainty of the EU law and the protection of legitimate expectations were violated by refusing to take into account established precedents in determining the correct interpretation of Regulation No 714/2009 and by adopting a radically different approach.






  — | The applicant should be able to rely on the regulatory practice and principles to the assessment of exemption requests that has been established in European Commission’s decisions. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the fundamental principle of legal certainty of the EU law and the protection of legitimate expectations were violated by refusing to take into account established precedents in determining the correct interpretation of Regulation No 714/2009 and by adopting a radically different approach.

—

The applicant should be able to rely on the regulatory practice and principles to the assessment of exemption requests that has been established in European Commission’s decisions.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that an error in the application of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed by failing to take into account restrictions under French law applicable to non-RTE promoters of electricity interconnectors in France.






  — | As the French legal restrictions have not been shown to be inconsistent with the EU law, therefore they should have been considered by the defendant in considering whether the investment would take place without an exemption. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that an error in the application of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed by failing to take into account restrictions under French law applicable to non-RTE promoters of electricity interconnectors in France.

—

As the French legal restrictions have not been shown to be inconsistent with the EU law, therefore they should have been considered by the defendant in considering whether the investment would take place without an exemption.

| — | There is no limitation to the types of risk that may be taken into account in the assessment of the condition of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No 714/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

There is no limitation to the types of risk that may be taken into account in the assessment of the condition of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No 714/2009.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that an error in the application of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed by failing to take into account the need for long term revenue certainty to secure financing for the applicant’s interconnector.
  Project risks may deter the commitment of the funding needed. The impact of risks on the applicant’s ability to secure financing should therefore have been considered. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that an error in the application of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed by failing to take into account the need for long term revenue certainty to secure financing for the applicant’s interconnector.

Project risks may deter the commitment of the funding needed. The impact of risks on the applicant’s ability to secure financing should therefore have been considered.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that an error in the application of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed by failing to consider the overall impact of the individual risks applicable to the applicant’s interconnector.
  The overall risk/reward balance determines whether an investment will proceed. Therefore analysing each type of risk individually should not be sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that an error in the application of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed by failing to consider the overall impact of the individual risks applicable to the applicant’s interconnector.

The overall risk/reward balance determines whether an investment will proceed. Therefore analysing each type of risk individually should not be sufficient.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s board of appeal failed to apply sufficient scrutiny to the defendant’s decision.
  Given its scope of powers and the serious questions to be addressed, the defendant’s board of appeal should have applied a higher level of scrutiny to the defendant’s decision. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s board of appeal failed to apply sufficient scrutiny to the defendant’s decision.

Given its scope of powers and the serious questions to be addressed, the defendant’s board of appeal should have applied a higher level of scrutiny to the defendant’s decision.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ L 211, 14.8.2009, p. 15).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC and amending Regulations (EC) No 713/2009, (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009 (OJ L 115, 25.4.2013, p. 39).

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/46

---

Action brought on 18 December 2018 — ZZ v ECB

(Case T-741/18)

(2019/C 103/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Demetriou, QC, D. Piccinin, Barrister, E. Poulton, L. Carlisle, and R. Molesworth, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the ECB’s decision of 10 October 2018 regarding the proposed acquisition by the applicant of a qualifying holding in Bank A (ECB-SSM-2018-LV-2); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the ECB’s decision of 10 October 2018 regarding the proposed acquisition by the applicant of a qualifying holding in Bank A (ECB-SSM-2018-LV-2);

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to show that the applicant lacked transparency in his dealings with the competent authorities.






  — | The applicant contends that the evidence relied on by the ECB in the contested decision does not establish and provides no proper basis for the ECB’s finding that the applicant was not transparent such that his integrity could be called into question. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to show that the applicant lacked transparency in his dealings with the competent authorities.

—

The applicant contends that the evidence relied on by the ECB in the contested decision does not establish and provides no proper basis for the ECB’s finding that the applicant was not transparent such that his integrity could be called into question.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in finding that the applicant’s innocent dealings with a third party cast doubt on the applicant’s integrity.






  — | The applicant contends that the ECB erred in law in finding that the applicant’s dealings with a third party cast doubt on his integrity in circumstances where the ECB accepts that the applicant had no knowledge of any wrongdoing on the part of that third party at the time and in circumstances where the applicant was an innocent victim of that wrongdoing. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in finding that the applicant’s innocent dealings with a third party cast doubt on the applicant’s integrity.

—

The applicant contends that the ECB erred in law in finding that the applicant’s dealings with a third party cast doubt on his integrity in circumstances where the ECB accepts that the applicant had no knowledge of any wrongdoing on the part of that third party at the time and in circumstances where the applicant was an innocent victim of that wrongdoing.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/47

---

Action brought on 30 December 2018 — Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi v European Commission

(Case T-763/18)

(2019/C 103/62)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi (Lazarus Kft.) (Békés, Hungary) (represented by: L. Szabó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Principally, declare the nullity of the Decision adopted by the Commission on 20 July 2011 in case SA. 29432 — CP 290/2009 — Hungary — ‘Aid for the employment of disabled workers alleged to be unlawful due to the discriminatory nature of the legislation’ (‘the decision primarily contested’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Principally, declare the nullity of the Decision adopted by the Commission on 20 July 2011 in case SA. 29432 — CP 290/2009 — Hungary — ‘Aid for the employment of disabled workers alleged to be unlawful due to the discriminatory nature of the legislation’ (‘the decision primarily contested’);

| — | In the alternative, declare the nullity of the Decision adopted by the Commission on 25 January 2017 in case SA. 45498 (FC/2016) — ‘Complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. concerning the State aid granted between 2006 and 2012 to companies employing disabled workers’ (‘the decision contested in the alternative’); |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, declare the nullity of the Decision adopted by the Commission on 25 January 2017 in case SA. 45498 (FC/2016) — ‘Complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. concerning the State aid granted between 2006 and 2012 to companies employing disabled workers’ (‘the decision contested in the alternative’);

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a plea in law in respect of each claim.

| 1. | First plea in law in support of the principal claim: error of law and incorrect assessment of the available evidence
  The Hungarian authorities granted unlawful State aid to 21 competitors of the applicant, in breach of Article 107(1) TFEU. That aid was not intended solely for the additional costs incurred in employing disabled workers, but was also to cover the general costs of the recipient undertakings, thereby distorting competition. In the decision primarily contested, the Commission indicated that the total amount of the aid granted to the recipient undertakings does not exceed the total amount of the aid that may be granted in accordance with Articles 41 and 42 of the General block exemption Regulation, (1) and that, in principle, the contested aid is therefore compatible with the internal market for the purposes of Article 107(3) TFEU. The decision primarily contested does not address the injurious effects for the applicant of the national measures by which the aid was allocated, and thereby infringes the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law in support of the principal claim: error of law and incorrect assessment of the available evidence

The Hungarian authorities granted unlawful State aid to 21 competitors of the applicant, in breach of Article 107(1) TFEU. That aid was not intended solely for the additional costs incurred in employing disabled workers, but was also to cover the general costs of the recipient undertakings, thereby distorting competition. In the decision primarily contested, the Commission indicated that the total amount of the aid granted to the recipient undertakings does not exceed the total amount of the aid that may be granted in accordance with Articles 41 and 42 of the General block exemption Regulation, (1) and that, in principle, the contested aid is therefore compatible with the internal market for the purposes of Article 107(3) TFEU. The decision primarily contested does not address the injurious effects for the applicant of the national measures by which the aid was allocated, and thereby infringes the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law in support of the subsidiary claim: error of law and manifest distortion of the available evidence
  The Commission erred in law and manifestly distorted the available evidence by stating, in the decision contested in the alternative, that the complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. contains no new legal or factual elements giving rise to any changes in the Commission’s assessment in case SA. 29432 — CP 290/2009. The decision contested in the alternative does not address the injurious effects for the applicant of the national measures by which the aid was allocated, and thereby infringes the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law in support of the subsidiary claim: error of law and manifest distortion of the available evidence

The Commission erred in law and manifestly distorted the available evidence by stating, in the decision contested in the alternative, that the complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. contains no new legal or factual elements giving rise to any changes in the Commission’s assessment in case SA. 29432 — CP 290/2009. The decision contested in the alternative does not address the injurious effects for the applicant of the national measures by which the aid was allocated, and thereby infringes the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles [107] and [108 TFEU] (OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3).

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/48

---

Action brought on 8 January 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-13/19)

(2019/C 103/63)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and O. Serdula, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | rule that the European Commission has breached its obligations under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by failing, in connection with the conditional provision of traditional own resources of CZK 40 482 255 by the Czech Republic, to bring proceedings against the Czech Republic for failure to fulfil obligations in this connection or to return the sum at issue, and |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the European Commission has breached its obligations under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by failing, in connection with the conditional provision of traditional own resources of CZK 40 482 255 by the Czech Republic, to bring proceedings against the Czech Republic for failure to fulfil obligations in this connection or to return the sum at issue, and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

The Czech Republic is of the opinion that the obligation upon the European Commission to take the abovementioned action follows from the principle of sincere cooperation provided for in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with the right to effective judicial protection laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Having regard to the fact that, according to case-law of the Court of Justice, (1) only the Court of Justice may authoritatively settle, in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, a dispute between a Member State and the European Commission in the area of traditional own resources, the European Commission must, in connection with the execution of the conditional payment in question, bring such proceedings without undue delay or return that payment if it finds no grounds upon which to bring such proceedings.

The Czech Republic paid the sum at issue into the European Commission’s account as far back as 2015. However, the European Commission has not brought proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations in that case and has not returned the sum in question conditionally paid to it, even though the Czech Republic has formally called upon it to do so. The Czech Republic therefore submits that the conditions have been met for a finding that the Commission has failed to act.

---

(1)  Compare judgment of 25 October 2017, Slovakia v Commission (C-593/15 P and C-594/15 P, EU:C:2017:800) and judgment of 25 October 2017, Romania v Commission (C-599/15 P, EU:C:207:801).

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/49

---

Action brought on 11 January 2019 — AD v ECHA

(Case T-25/19)

(2019/C 103/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AD (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 28 March 2018 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract with the ECHA; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 28 March 2018 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract with the ECHA;

| — | annul the vacancy notice published on 9 March 2018 by the ECHA for a contractual agent FG II post, in so far as it offers a post with tasks identical to those the applicant was performing under her temporary agent contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the vacancy notice published on 9 March 2018 by the ECHA for a contractual agent FG II post, in so far as it offers a post with tasks identical to those the applicant was performing under her temporary agent contract;

| — | if need be, annul also the defendant’s decision of 1 October 2018, notified to the applicant on 2 October 2018, which rejects the applicant’s complaint against the non-renewal decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

if need be, annul also the defendant’s decision of 1 October 2018, notified to the applicant on 2 October 2018, which rejects the applicant’s complaint against the non-renewal decision;

| — | order the compensation of the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the compensation of the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of the Work Instructions laid down by ECHA regarding the renewal or non-renewal process relating to contracts and of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of the Work Instructions laid down by ECHA regarding the renewal or non-renewal process relating to contracts and of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state sufficient reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state sufficient reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to be heard.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of care.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the reasons stated by the ECHA to justify the non-renewal of the employment contract are manifestly mistaken and show a misuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the reasons stated by the ECHA to justify the non-renewal of the employment contract are manifestly mistaken and show a misuse of power.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/50

---

Action brought on 15 January 2019 — AF v FRA

(Case T-31/19)

(2019/C 103/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AF (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 9 May 2018 drawing up a list of eligible temporary agents proposed for the 2017 reclassification exercise where the name of the applicant was not included; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 9 May 2018 drawing up a list of eligible temporary agents proposed for the 2017 reclassification exercise where the name of the applicant was not included;

| — | if need be, annul also the FRA’s decision received by the applicant on 5 October 2018, which rejects the applicant’s complaint against the FRA’s said decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

if need be, annul also the FRA’s decision received by the applicant on 5 October 2018, which rejects the applicant’s complaint against the FRA’s said decision;

| — | order the compensation of the material prejudice suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the compensation of the material prejudice suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS) as well as of Article 30 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and of Article 3 of the FRA’s Executive Board Decision No 2016/01 laying down general implementing provisions regarding Article 54 of the CEOS. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS) as well as of Article 30 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and of Article 3 of the FRA’s Executive Board Decision No 2016/01 laying down general implementing provisions regarding Article 54 of the CEOS.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that there has been a violation of the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that there has been a violation of the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that there has been a violation of the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that there has been a violation of the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/50

---

Action brought on 17 January 2019 — Harrington Padrón v Council

(Case T-32/19)

(2019/C 103/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018, (2) insofar as their provisions concern the Applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018, (2) insofar as their provisions concern the Applicant; and

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that her name should be maintained on the lists set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 (3) and Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017, (4) notwithstanding the fact that she is no longer Deputy Prosecutor General and is not related to the Venezuelan governing authorities.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 10).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 60).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 21).

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/51

---

Action brought on 21 January 2019 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-38/19)

(2019/C 103/67)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, P. Barros da Costa, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Decision C(2018) 7424 of 16 November 2018, notified on 19 November 2018, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the sum of EUR 8 703 417,29relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic in connection with cross-compliance, in the financial years from 2014 to 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision C(2018) 7424 of 16 November 2018, notified on 19 November 2018, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the sum of EUR 8 703 417,29relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic in connection with cross-compliance, in the financial years from 2014 to 2016;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on two principal pleas in law and one subsidiary plea.

First plea in law: error of law in finding that the Portuguese system is too lenient — infringement of Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (2) and infringement of the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1)(c), and Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009. (3)

Second plea in law:

| 1. | ‘Calculation of the financial correction’ — Error of law, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality, and of Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

‘Calculation of the financial correction’ — Error of law, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality, and of Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 by the Commission;

| 2. | Infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of the principle of proportionality.

Subsidiary plea:

Average penalty and lack of technical precision of Commission document C(2015) 3675 (annex A.5) — error of law and infringement of the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1841 of 16 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) (notified under document C(2018) 7424) (OJ 2018 L 298, p. 34).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/52

---

Action brought on 24 January 2019 WV v EEAS

(Case T-43/19)

(2019/C 103/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WV (represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the application for compensation and, where necessary, the decision of 26 June rejecting the complaint and adopted on 26 October 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the application for compensation and, where necessary, the decision of 26 June rejecting the complaint and adopted on 26 October 2018;

| — | Consequently, grant the application for compensation made by the applicant under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations and described in the letter of 29 November 2017, recognise and grant to the applicant payment of an indemnity to be paid by the EEAS, assessed ex aequo et bono and subject to any increase during the proceedings, in the amount of EUR 690 000, in respect of all material and non-material damages, damage to reputation and to professional integrity, such amount being fixed on 31 January 2019, and subject to any increase during the proceedings and without prejudice to claiming compensation for loss of future income resulting from possible departure from the institutions; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, grant the application for compensation made by the applicant under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations and described in the letter of 29 November 2017, recognise and grant to the applicant payment of an indemnity to be paid by the EEAS, assessed ex aequo et bono and subject to any increase during the proceedings, in the amount of EUR 690 000, in respect of all material and non-material damages, damage to reputation and to professional integrity, such amount being fixed on 31 January 2019, and subject to any increase during the proceedings and without prejudice to claiming compensation for loss of future income resulting from possible departure from the institutions;

| — | Order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea, alleging the infringement, inter alia, of Articles 12, 12a, 22b, 24, 25 and 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), of Article 1 and 2 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, and of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

The applicant also alleges, first, by way of that plea, infringement, inter alia, of Articles 41, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, of the rights of defence, and of the principle of adversarial proceedings and Article 296 TFEU.

Secondly, she considers that the administration also committed abuses of rights and abuse of process, in addition to a manifest breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of equality of arms. The applicant considers that the contested decision is vitiated by a breach of the principle that requires the administration to adopt a decision solely on the basis of legally permissible grounds, by which is meant grounds that are relevant and not vitiated by any manifest error of assessment, of fact or of law, and breach of the principle of proportionality, of the duty to afford assistance and to have regard for the interests of members of staff, of the ‘reasonable time’ principle and of the principle of good administration.

The contested decision was therefore based on a partial, biased and tendentious assessment of the facts and of the applicable rules of law.

The applicant claims, in essence, that there is undoubtedly a causal link between the faults committed by the appointing authority and the damage suffered, since such unlawful conduct causes serious damage to the applicant’s professional, moral and financial integrity. The faults committed serve to damage or even destroy the applicant’s reputation vis-à-vis her internal and external interlocutors and results in her having a real loss of opportunity for professional development, placing her, consequently, in a situation of powerlessness, which is the source of concern and/or a state of permanent anxiety and uncertainty as to the future.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/53

---

Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Dansk Erhverv v Commission

(Case T-47/19)

(2019/C 103/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dansk Erhverv (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: T. Mygind, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission decision C(2018) 6315 final of 4 October 2018 concerning State aid SA.44865 (2016/FC) — Germany — Alleged State aid to German beverage border shops; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission decision C(2018) 6315 final of 4 October 2018 concerning State aid SA.44865 (2016/FC) — Germany — Alleged State aid to German beverage border shops;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s procedural rights as an interested party pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU and Articles 4(4), 12(1) and 24(1) of the Procedural Regulation, (1) by failing to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU despite the serious difficulties arising in the assessment of the state aid issues addressed in the complaint related to the administrative ‘export declaration’ practice and in particular to the relief of the obligation for the Border Shops to charge a deposit and thereby pay the deposit VAT, as well as a relief of fines for violations of the deposit charging obligations under the German canned beverages deposit scheme. The Commission therefore committed errors of law and manifest errors of assessment of the facts, first, as concerns the compatibility of the ‘export declaration’ practice with Germany’s obligations pursuant to Article 4(3) TFEU, the Packaging Directive (2) and the polluter-pays principle, and with the deposit charging requirements pursuant to the applicable German Packaging Ordonnance. Secondly, the Commission erred with respect to the State aid effects of the VAT revenue foregone by Germany as a result of the ‘export declaration’ practice.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 9.

(2)  Directive (EU) 2018/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 141.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/54

---

Action brought on 28 January 2019 — smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things)

(Case T-48/19)

(2019/C 103/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: smart things solutions GmbH (Seefeld, Germany) (represented by: R. Dissmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Samsung Electronics GmbH (Schwalbach am Taunus, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark smart:)things in colours black and green — European Union trade mark No 10 914 836

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2018 in Case R 835/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/55

---

Action brought on 28 January 2019 — View v EUIPO (CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS)

(Case T-49/19)

(2019/C 103/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: View, Inc. (Milpitas, Delaware, United States) (represented by: G. Tritton, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS — International registration designating the European Union No 1 381 213

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 in Case R 1625/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/55

---

Action brought on 28 January 2019 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday)

(Case T-50/19)

(2019/C 103/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Casual Dreams, SLU (Manresa, España) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Ángel López Fernández (Fuensalida, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark Dayaday — Application for registration No 13 243 563

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 in Case R 2097/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul in part the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 27 November 2018 in Case R 2097/2018-5, which rejected in part the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO No B 2 469 545 of 17 December 2015. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in part the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 27 November 2018 in Case R 2097/2018-5, which rejected in part the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO No B 2 469 545 of 17 December 2015.

| — | Annul in part the contested decision, on the basis of Article 8(5) of the EUTMR, in so far as it upheld the rejection of the opposition and the appeal in respect of the goods in Classes 9, 16 and 24. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in part the contested decision, on the basis of Article 8(5) of the EUTMR, in so far as it upheld the rejection of the opposition and the appeal in respect of the goods in Classes 9, 16 and 24.

| — | Refuse the application for registration of EU trade mark No 13 243 563 submitted by the intervener in respect of the following goods:
  Class 9: ‘Optical devices, enhancers and correctors; Optical enhancers; Opticians’ goods; Optical apparatus and instruments; Optical glass; Interchangeable lenses; Anti-reflective lenses; Plastic lenses; Ophthalmic lenses; Optical lenses; Lens; Sunglasses; Corrective eyewear; Cases for sunglasses; Correcting lenses [optics]; Glass ophthalmic lenses; Frames for spectacles and sunglasses; Chains for sunglasses; Clip-on sunglasses; Straps for sunglasses; Lenses for sunglasses; Optical lenses for use with sunglasses; Frames for sunglasses; Prescription eyewear; Pince-nez chains; Pince-nez cords; Lenses for eyeglasses; Optical glasses; Holders for contact lenses; Cases adapted for contact lenses; Glasses cases; Lens cases; Containers for contact lenses; Spectacles [optics]; Reading glasses; Children’s eye glasses; Polarizing spectacles; Frames for glasses; Unmounted spectacle frames; Bars for spectacles; Eyeglass shields; Spectacle holders; Spectacles [optics]; Eyeglasses; Corrective eyewear; Spectacle holders; Snow goggles; Cyclists’ glasses; Frames for glasses; Pince-nez chains; Goggles for sports; Glasses cases; Frames for sunglasses; Snow goggles; Swim goggles; Goggles for sports; Goggles for sports’.
  Class 16: ‘Adhesives for stationery or household purposes; Works of art and figurines of paper and cardboard, and architects’ models; Stationery supplies; Money holders; Adhesives for stationery; Paper bags and sacks; Appointment books; Catalogues; Leather covered diaries; Printed advertisements; Photograph stands; Printing and bookbinding equipment; Writing and stamping implements; Educational equipment; Knives (Paper -) [office requisites]; Agendas; Desk trays; Stationery; Office requisites; Writing materials; Writing stationery; Office stationery; School supplies [stationery]; Bookends; Pen trays’.
  Class 24: ‘Fabrics; Curtains; Coverings for furniture; Household textile articles; Household textile articles made from non-woven materials; Linens; Wall hangings; Soft furnishings; Non-woven textile articles; Interlinings made of non-woven fabrics; Hat linings, of textile, in the piece; Linings [textile]; Handkerchiefs of textile; Textile tissues; Textile goods, not included in other classes; Handkerchiefs; Textiles made of linen; Textiles made of flannel; Traced cloths for embroidery; Wash cloths; Towels [textile] for kitchen use; Textiles, not included in other classes; Interfacings; Fleece made from polypropylene; Fleece made from polyester; Fabric linings for clothing; Foulard [fabric]; Textile piece goods made of cotton; Synthetic textile piece goods; Textile fabrics in the piece; Canvas; Materials for soft furnishings; Materials for use in making clothes; Suiting materials [textile]; Textiles for making up into articles of clothing; Textile fabrics for making up into household textile articles; Textile fabrics for use in the manufacture of sportswear; Textile fabrics for the manufacture of clothing; Fabric for use in the manufacture of wallets; Fabric of imitation animal skins; Fabric for manufacturing women’s outerwear; Denim fabric; Fabric used for orthotic devices; Waterproof fabrics for use in the manufacture of trousers; Waterproof fabrics for use in the manufacture of jackets; Waterproof fabrics for use in the manufacture of hats; Waterproof fabrics for use in the manufacture of gloves; Fabrics for use as linings in clothing; Apparel fabrics; Coated fabrics for use in the manufacture of leather goods; Coated fabrics for use in the manufacture of rainwear; Woven fabrics imitating leather; Textiles impervious to water but permeable to moisture; Textile piece goods for making-up into towels’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refuse the application for registration of EU trade mark No 13 243 563 submitted by the intervener in respect of the following goods:

Class 9: ‘Optical devices, enhancers and correctors; Optical enhancers; Opticians’ goods; Optical apparatus and instruments; Optical glass; Interchangeable lenses; Anti-reflective lenses; Plastic lenses; Ophthalmic lenses; Optical lenses; Lens; Sunglasses; Corrective eyewear; Cases for sunglasses; Correcting lenses [optics]; Glass ophthalmic lenses; Frames for spectacles and sunglasses; Chains for sunglasses; Clip-on sunglasses; Straps for sunglasses; Lenses for sunglasses; Optical lenses for use with sunglasses; Frames for sunglasses; Prescription eyewear; Pince-nez chains; Pince-nez cords; Lenses for eyeglasses; Optical glasses; Holders for contact lenses; Cases adapted for contact lenses; Glasses cases; Lens cases; Containers for contact lenses; Spectacles [optics]; Reading glasses; Children’s eye glasses; Polarizing spectacles; Frames for glasses; Unmounted spectacle frames; Bars for spectacles; Eyeglass shields; Spectacle holders; Spectacles [optics]; Eyeglasses; Corrective eyewear; Spectacle holders; Snow goggles; Cyclists’ glasses; Frames for glasses; Pince-nez chains; Goggles for sports; Glasses cases; Frames for sunglasses; Snow goggles; Swim goggles; Goggles for sports; Goggles for sports’.

Class 16: ‘Adhesives for stationery or household purposes; Works of art and figurines of paper and cardboard, and architects’ models; Stationery supplies; Money holders; Adhesives for stationery; Paper bags and sacks; Appointment books; Catalogues; Leather covered diaries; Printed advertisements; Photograph stands; Printing and bookbinding equipment; Writing and stamping implements; Educational equipment; Knives (Paper -) [office requisites]; Agendas; Desk trays; Stationery; Office requisites; Writing materials; Writing stationery; Office stationery; School supplies [stationery]; Bookends; Pen trays’.

Class 24: ‘Fabrics; Curtains; Coverings for furniture; Household textile articles; Household textile articles made from non-woven materials; Linens; Wall hangings; Soft furnishings; Non-woven textile articles; Interlinings made of non-woven fabrics; Hat linings, of textile, in the piece; Linings [textile]; Handkerchiefs of textile; Textile tissues; Textile goods, not included in other classes; Handkerchiefs; Textiles made of linen; Textiles made of flannel; Traced cloths for embroidery; Wash cloths; Towels [textile] for kitchen use; Textiles, not included in other classes; Interfacings; Fleece made from polypropylene; Fleece made from polyester; Fabric linings for clothing; Foulard [fabric]; Textile piece goods made of cotton; Synthetic textile piece goods; Textile fabrics in the piece; Canvas; Materials for soft furnishings; Materials for use in making clothes; Suiting materials [textile]; Textiles for making up into articles of clothing; Textile fabrics for making up into household textile articles; Textile fabrics for use in the manufacture of sportswear; Textile fabrics for the manufacture of clothing; Fabric for use in the manufacture of wallets; Fabric of imitation animal skins; Fabric for manufacturing women’s outerwear; Denim fabric; Fabric used for orthotic devices; Waterproof fabrics for use in the manufacture of trousers; Waterproof fabrics for use in the manufacture of jackets; Waterproof fabrics for use in the manufacture of hats; Waterproof fabrics for use in the manufacture of gloves; Fabrics for use as linings in clothing; Apparel fabrics; Coated fabrics for use in the manufacture of leather goods; Coated fabrics for use in the manufacture of rainwear; Woven fabrics imitating leather; Textiles impervious to water but permeable to moisture; Textile piece goods for making-up into towels’.

| — | Order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/57

---

Action brought on 29 January 2019 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret (apiheal)

(Case T-51/19)

(2019/C 103/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark apiheal — Application for registration No 14 411 557

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2018 in Case R 1725/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision in so far as concerns the partial granting of the application for the following goods: ‘perfumery; cosmetics; fragrances; deodorants for personal use and animals; soaps; bath herbs, not for medical purposes; dental care preparations, dentifrices, denture polishes, tooth whitening preparations, mouth washes, not for medical use’ in Class 3 and ‘preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides’ in Class 5. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision in so far as concerns the partial granting of the application for the following goods: ‘perfumery; cosmetics; fragrances; deodorants for personal use and animals; soaps; bath herbs, not for medical purposes; dental care preparations, dentifrices, denture polishes, tooth whitening preparations, mouth washes, not for medical use’ in Class 3 and ‘preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides’ in Class 5.

| — | Refuse EU trade mark application No 14 411 557 apiheal with regard to the aforementioned ‘perfumery; cosmetics; fragrances; deodorants for personal use and animals; soaps; bath herbs, not for medical purposes; dental care preparations, dentifrices, denture polishes, tooth whitening preparations, mouth washes, not for medical use’ in Class 3 and ‘preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides’ in Class 5. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refuse EU trade mark application No 14 411 557 apiheal with regard to the aforementioned ‘perfumery; cosmetics; fragrances; deodorants for personal use and animals; soaps; bath herbs, not for medical purposes; dental care preparations, dentifrices, denture polishes, tooth whitening preparations, mouth washes, not for medical use’ in Class 3 and ‘preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides’ in Class 5.

| — | Order EUIPO and, if applicable, the intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order EUIPO and, if applicable, the intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and the Council.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/58

---

Action brought on 31 January 2019 — SBS Bilimsel Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Laboratorios Ern (apiheal)

(Case T-53/19)

(2019/C 103/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: SBS Bilimsel Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. López Camba, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark apiheal — Application for registration No 14 411 557

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2018 in Case R 1725/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it refused registration in respect of goods in Classes 30 and 5 (first and third paragraphs of the operative part of that decision); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it refused registration in respect of goods in Classes 30 and 5 (first and third paragraphs of the operative part of that decision);

| — | order EUIPO and Laboratorios Ern, SA, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Laboratorios Ern, SA, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/59

---

Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO and Others v SEAE

(Case T-56/17) (1)

(2019/C 103/75)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/59

---

Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO v EEAS

(Case T-479/17) (1)

(2019/C 103/76)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/59

---

Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PP and Others v EEAS

(Case T-727/17) (1)

(2019/C 103/77)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/60

---

Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — VJ v EEAS

(Case T-180/18) (1)

(2019/C 103/78)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/60

---

Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO v EEAS

(Case T-494/18) (1)

(2019/C 103/79)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.

---