# Official Journal C 161/7 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 161 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 617 May 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 161

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 617 May 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2018/C 161/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2018/C 161/02 | Decision of the Court of Justice of 13 March 2018 on official holidays and judicial vacations | 2 |
| | General Court |
| 2018/C 161/03 | Decision of the General Court of 21 March 2018 on judicial vacations | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2018/C 161/01

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

2018/C 161/02

Decision of the Court of Justice of 13 March 2018 on official holidays and judicial vacations

2

General Court

2018/C 161/03

Decision of the General Court of 21 March 2018 on judicial vacations

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2018/C 161/04 | Joined Cases C-52/16 and C-113/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — SEGRO Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Sárvári Járási Földhivatala (C-52/16), Günther Horváth v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal (C-113/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Rights of usufruct over agricultural land — National legislation permitting such rights to be acquired in the future only by close family members of the owner of the land and cancelling, without providing for compensation, the rights previously acquired by legal persons or by natural persons who cannot demonstrate a close family tie with the owner of the land) | 5 |
| 2018/C 161/05 | Case C-127/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 — SNCF Mobilités, formerly Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) v European Commission, French Republic, Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation (Appeal — State aid — Aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of Sernam — Restructuring and recapitalisation aid, guarantees and waiving of Sernam's financial debts by SNCF — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Sale of assets en bloc — Concept of sale — Confusion between object and price of the sale of assets en bloc — Open and transparent procedure — Private investor test — Application of that principle to an assignment of assets en bloc — Compensatory measures) | 6 |
| 2018/C 161/06 | Joint cases C-274/16, C-447/16 and C-448/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA (C-274/16), Roland Becker v Hainan Airlines Co. Ltd (C-447/16), Mohamed Barkan and Others v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA (C-448/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of Freedom, Security and Justice — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 5(1) — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(1) — Concept of matters relating to a contract — Contract for the provision of services — Connecting flight operated by different air carriers — Concept of place of performance — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Right of air passengers to compensation for denied boarding and for the long delay of a flight — Action for compensation brought against an operating air carrier not domiciled in the territory of a Member State or with which the passengers do not have contractual relations) | 6 |
| 2018/C 161/07 | Case C-284/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bilateral investment treaty concluded in 1991 between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic and still applicable between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic — Provision enabling an investor from one Contracting Party to bring proceedings before an arbitral tribunal in the event of a dispute with the other Contracting Party — Compatibility with Articles 18, 267 and 344 TFEU — Concept of court or tribunal — Autonomy of EU law) | 7 |
| 2018/C 161/08 | Case C-395/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community design — Article 8(1) — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Criteria for assessment — Existence of alternative designs — Consideration of the point of view of an objective observer) | 8 |
| 2018/C 161/09 | Case C-494/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trapani — Italy) — Giuseppa Santoro v Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Fixed-term work — Contracts concluded with a public sector employer — Measures to penalise the misuse of fixed-term contracts — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness) | 9 |
| 2018/C 161/10 | Case C-560/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — E.ON Czech Holding AG v Michael Dědouch, Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Exclusive jurisdiction — Article 22(2) — Validity of decisions of the organs of companies or legal persons having their seat in the territory of a Member State — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State — Decision of the general meeting of a company ordering the compulsory transfer to that company’s principal shareholder of the shares held by the company’s minority shareholders and determining the consideration to be paid to them by the principal shareholder — Judicial procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of that consideration) | 9 |
| 2018/C 161/11 | Case C-579/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 — European Commission v FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S (Appeal — State aid — Definition of aid — Definition of economic advantage — Market economy operator principle — Conditions governing applicability and application — Financial crisis — Successive bank bail outs — Whether account to be taken, in the assessment of the second bail out, of the risks arising from commitments entered into by a Member State in the first bail out) | 10 |
| 2018/C 161/12 | Case C-651/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — DW v Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Maternity benefit — Calculation of the amount on the basis of the income of the insured person during a reference period of 12 months — Person employed, during that period, by an EU institution — National legislation fixing the amount at issue at 70 % of the average contribution basis — Restriction on freedom of movement for workers — Principle of sincere cooperation) | 11 |
| 2018/C 161/13 | Case C-31/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Cristal Union, the legal successor to Sucrerie de Toury SA v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 14(1)(a) — Energy products used for the generation of electricity — Obligation to exempt — Article 15(1)(c) — Energy products used for combined heat and power generation — Option to exempt or reduce the level of taxation — Natural gas intended for use in the cogeneration of heat and electricity) | 11 |
| 2018/C 161/14 | Case C-64/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Saey Home & Garden NV/SA v Lusavouga-Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 25 — Existence of a jurisdiction clause — Verbal agreement without written confirmation — Clause contained in the general terms and conditions of sale mentioned in invoices — Article 7(1)(b) — Commercial concession agreement between two companies established in different Member States in respect of the market of a third Member State — Article 7(1)(b), second indent — Determination of the court with jurisdiction — Place of performance of the obligation that is characteristic of such a contract) | 12 |
| 2018/C 161/15 | Case C-159/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius v Ministerul Finanţelor Publice — A.N.A.F. — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, A.N.A.F — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — A.J.F.P. Constanţa — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Fizice 2 Constanţa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Revocation of identification for VAT purposes — Obligation to pay VAT collected in the period during which the VAT identification number is revoked — Non-recognition of the right to deduct VAT relating to purchases made during that period) | 13 |
| 2018/C 161/16 | Case C-642/17 P: Appeal brought on 15 November 2017 by Arrigoni SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2017 in Case T-454/16 Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Battista (Arrigoni Valtaleggio) | 14 |
| 2018/C 161/17 | Case C-67/18 P: Appeal brought on 30 January 2018 by Dominique Bilde against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 November 2017 in Case T-633/16, Bilde v Parliament | 14 |
| 2018/C 161/18 | Case C-70/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 2 February 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v A and Others | 16 |
| 2018/C 161/19 | Case C-72/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Pamplona (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2018 — Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui v Consejería de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra | 17 |
| 2018/C 161/20 | Case C-84/18 P: Appeal brought on 6 February 2018 by Sophie Montel against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 November 2017 in Case T-634/16, Montel v Parliament | 17 |
| 2018/C 161/21 | Case C-86/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 19 |
| 2018/C 161/22 | Case C-87/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 20 |
| 2018/C 161/23 | Case C-88/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 20 |
| 2018/C 161/24 | Case C-95/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 February 2018 — Sociale Verzekeringsbank; other parties: F. van den Berg and H.D. Giesen | 21 |
| 2018/C 161/25 | Case C-96/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 February 2018 — Sociale Verzekeringsbank; other party: C.E. Franzen | 22 |
| 2018/C 161/26 | Case C-100/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Línea Directa Aseguradora, S.A. v Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros | 23 |
| 2018/C 161/27 | Case C-103/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 8 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Domingo Sánchez Ruiz v Comunidad de Madrid (Servicio Madrileño de Salud) | 23 |
| 2018/C 161/28 | Case C-105/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Asociación Española de la Industria Eléctrica (UNESA) v Administración General del Estado | 25 |
| 2018/C 161/29 | Case C-106/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Energía de Galicia (Engasa), S.A. v Administración General del Estado | 26 |
| 2018/C 161/30 | Case C-107/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Duerocanto, S.L. v Administración General del Estado | 27 |
| 2018/C 161/31 | Case C-108/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Corporación Acciona Hidráulica (Acciona), S.L.U. v Administración General del Estado | 28 |
| 2018/C 161/32 | Case C-109/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Associació de Productors i Usuaris d’Energia Elèctrica v Administración General del Estado | 29 |
| 2018/C 161/33 | Case C-110/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — José Manuel Burgos Pérez and María del Amor Guinea Bueno v Administración General del Estado | 30 |
| 2018/C 161/34 | Case C-111/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Endesa Generación, S.A. v Administración General del Estado | 30 |
| 2018/C 161/35 | Case C-112/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Asociación de Productores de Energías Renovables (APPA) v Administración General del Estado | 31 |
| 2018/C 161/36 | Case C-113/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Parc del Segre, S.A. and Others v Administración General del Estado | 32 |
| 2018/C 161/37 | Case C-117/18 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2018 by PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) made on 14 December 2017 in Case T-849/16, PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH v European Commission | 33 |
| 2018/C 161/38 | Case C-119/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Telefónica Móviles España, S.A.U. v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC) | 34 |
| 2018/C 161/39 | Case C-120/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Orange España, S.A.U. v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC) | 35 |
| 2018/C 161/40 | Case C-121/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 14 February 2018 — Vodafone España, S.A.U. v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC) | 36 |
| 2018/C 161/41 | Case C-123/18 P: Appeal brought on 15 February 2018 against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-692/15, HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH v Council of the European Union | 37 |
| 2018/C 161/42 | Case C-132/18 P: Appeal brought on 15 February 2018 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-728/16, Tuerck v Commission | 38 |
| 2018/C 161/43 | Case C-142/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Skype Communications Sàrl v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT) | 39 |
| 2018/C 161/44 | Case C-145/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Regards Photographiques SARL v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics | 40 |
| 2018/C 161/45 | Case C-149/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 26 February 2018 — Agostinho da Silva Martins v Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA | 41 |
| 2018/C 161/46 | Case C-152/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-712/15, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank | 41 |
| 2018/C 161/47 | Case C-153/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-52/16, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank | 42 |
| 2018/C 161/48 | Case C-202/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Ilmārs Rimšēvičs v Republic of Latvia | 43 |
| 2018/C 161/49 | Case C-238/18: Action brought on 3 April 2018 — European Central Bank v Republic of Latvia | 44 |
| | General Court |
| 2018/C 161/50 | Case T-540/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — De Capitani v Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning an ongoing legislative procedure — Trilogues — Four-column tables relating to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Europol and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JAI and 2005/681/JAI — Partial refusal of access — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — First subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — No general presumption that access should be refused to four-column tables drawn up for the purposes of trilogues) | 46 |
| 2018/C 161/51 | Case T-242/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — 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 covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Applicant’s name maintained on the list — Obligation to state reasons — Objection of illegality — Proportionality — Legal basis — Manifest error of assessment) | 47 |
| 2018/C 161/52 | Case T-442/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Šroubárna Ždánice v Council (Application for repayment of anti-dumping duties — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China or consigned from Malaysia — Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 — Jurisdiction of the national court — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court) | 47 |
| 2018/C 161/53 | Case T-579/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — HJ v EMA (Civil service — Temporary staff — Refusal to renew a fixed-term contract — First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS — Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as an indefinite contract — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Duty to state reasons — Right to be heard — Appraisal report — Duty to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment) | 48 |
| 2018/C 161/54 | Case T-734/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Argyraki v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Calculation of years — Taking into account periods of service completed as a member of the auxiliary staff — Conditions — Legal basis) | 49 |
| 2018/C 161/55 | Case T-60/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Safe Skies v EUIPO — Travel Sentry (TSA LOCK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark TSA LOCK — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 50 |
| 2018/C 161/56 | Case T-272/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Webgarden v EUIPO (Dating Bracelet) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Dating Bracelet — Absolute ground 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) — Previous EUIPO practice — Equal treatment — Legal certainty) | 50 |
| 2018/C 161/57 | Case T-246/16: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Aurora Group Danmark v EUIPO — Retail Distribution (PANZER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate) | 51 |
| 2018/C 161/58 | Case T-567/17: Order of the General Court of 13 March 2018 — Disney Enterprises v EUIPO — Di Molfetta (DiSNEY FROZEN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate) | 51 |
| 2018/C 161/59 | Case T-46/18: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Comune di Milano v Council (Declining of jurisdiction) | 52 |
| 2018/C 161/60 | Case T-109/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — VI v Commission | 53 |
| 2018/C 161/61 | Case T-115/18: Action brought on 26 February 2018 — Tomasz Kawałko Trofeum v EUIPO — Ferrero (KINDERPRAMS) | 54 |
| 2018/C 161/62 | Case T-129/18: Action brought on 01 March 2018 — HMV (Brands) v EUIPO — Our Price Records (OUR PRICE) | 54 |
| 2018/C 161/63 | Case T-140/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs v EUIPO (LITECRAFT) | 55 |
| 2018/C 161/64 | Case T-143/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Société générale v ECB | 56 |
| 2018/C 161/65 | Case T-144/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Crédit Agricole and Others v ECB | 57 |
| 2018/C 161/66 | Case T-145/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v ECB | 57 |
| 2018/C 161/67 | Case T-146/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — BPCE and Others v ECB | 58 |
| 2018/C 161/68 | Case T-149/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Arkéa Direct Bank and Others v ECB | 58 |
| 2018/C 161/69 | Case T-150/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — BNP Paribas v ECB | 59 |
| 2018/C 161/70 | Case T-156/18: Action brought on 26 February 2018 — Legutko and Poręba v Parliament | 59 |
| 2018/C 161/71 | Case T-163/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Amisi Kumba v Council | 60 |
| 2018/C 161/72 | Case T-164/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kampete v Council | 61 |
| 2018/C 161/73 | Case T-165/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council | 61 |
| 2018/C 161/74 | Case T-166/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council | 62 |
| 2018/C 161/75 | Case T-167/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kanyama v Council | 63 |
| 2018/C 161/76 | Case T-168/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Numbi v Council | 63 |
| 2018/C 161/77 | Case T-169/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kibelisa Ngambasai v Council | 64 |
| 2018/C 161/78 | Case T-170/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kande Mupompa v Council | 64 |
| 2018/C 161/79 | Case T-171/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Boshab v Council | 65 |
| 2018/C 161/80 | Case T-172/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Akili Mundos v Council | 65 |
| 2018/C 161/81 | Case T-173/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Ramazani Shadary v Council | 66 |
| 2018/C 161/82 | Case T-174/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Mutondo v Council | 67 |
| 2018/C 161/83 | Case T-175/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Ruhorimbere v Council | 67 |
| 2018/C 161/84 | Case T-176/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Mende Omalanga v Council | 68 |
| 2018/C 161/85 | Case T-177/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kazembe Musonda v Council | 68 |
| 2018/C 161/86 | Case T-180/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VJ v EEAS | 69 |
| 2018/C 161/87 | Case T-181/18: Action brought on 9 March 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (TAKE CARE) | 70 |
| 2018/C 161/88 | Case T-185/18: Action brought on 14 March 2018 — Lucchini v Commission | 70 |
| 2018/C 161/89 | Case T-191/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles) | 71 |
| 2018/C 161/90 | Case T-192/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles) | 72 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2018/C 161/04

Joined Cases C-52/16 and C-113/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — SEGRO Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Sárvári Járási Földhivatala (C-52/16), Günther Horváth v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal (C-113/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Rights of usufruct over agricultural land — National legislation permitting such rights to be acquired in the future only by close family members of the owner of the land and cancelling, without providing for compensation, the rights previously acquired by legal persons or by natural persons who cannot demonstrate a close family tie with the owner of the land)

5

2018/C 161/05

Case C-127/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 — SNCF Mobilités, formerly Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) v European Commission, French Republic, Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation (Appeal — State aid — Aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of Sernam — Restructuring and recapitalisation aid, guarantees and waiving of Sernam's financial debts by SNCF — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Sale of assets en bloc — Concept of sale — Confusion between object and price of the sale of assets en bloc — Open and transparent procedure — Private investor test — Application of that principle to an assignment of assets en bloc — Compensatory measures)

6

2018/C 161/06

Joint cases C-274/16, C-447/16 and C-448/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA (C-274/16), Roland Becker v Hainan Airlines Co. Ltd (C-447/16), Mohamed Barkan and Others v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA (C-448/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of Freedom, Security and Justice — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 5(1) — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(1) — Concept of matters relating to a contract — Contract for the provision of services — Connecting flight operated by different air carriers — Concept of place of performance — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Right of air passengers to compensation for denied boarding and for the long delay of a flight — Action for compensation brought against an operating air carrier not domiciled in the territory of a Member State or with which the passengers do not have contractual relations)

6

2018/C 161/07

Case C-284/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bilateral investment treaty concluded in 1991 between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic and still applicable between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic — Provision enabling an investor from one Contracting Party to bring proceedings before an arbitral tribunal in the event of a dispute with the other Contracting Party — Compatibility with Articles 18, 267 and 344 TFEU — Concept of court or tribunal — Autonomy of EU law)

7

2018/C 161/08

Case C-395/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community design — Article 8(1) — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Criteria for assessment — Existence of alternative designs — Consideration of the point of view of an objective observer)

8

2018/C 161/09

Case C-494/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trapani — Italy) — Giuseppa Santoro v Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Fixed-term work — Contracts concluded with a public sector employer — Measures to penalise the misuse of fixed-term contracts — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

9

2018/C 161/10

Case C-560/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — E.ON Czech Holding AG v Michael Dědouch, Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Exclusive jurisdiction — Article 22(2) — Validity of decisions of the organs of companies or legal persons having their seat in the territory of a Member State — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State — Decision of the general meeting of a company ordering the compulsory transfer to that company’s principal shareholder of the shares held by the company’s minority shareholders and determining the consideration to be paid to them by the principal shareholder — Judicial procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of that consideration)

9

2018/C 161/11

Case C-579/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 — European Commission v FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S (Appeal — State aid — Definition of aid — Definition of economic advantage — Market economy operator principle — Conditions governing applicability and application — Financial crisis — Successive bank bail outs — Whether account to be taken, in the assessment of the second bail out, of the risks arising from commitments entered into by a Member State in the first bail out)

10

2018/C 161/12

Case C-651/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — DW v Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Maternity benefit — Calculation of the amount on the basis of the income of the insured person during a reference period of 12 months — Person employed, during that period, by an EU institution — National legislation fixing the amount at issue at 70 % of the average contribution basis — Restriction on freedom of movement for workers — Principle of sincere cooperation)

11

2018/C 161/13

Case C-31/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Cristal Union, the legal successor to Sucrerie de Toury SA v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 14(1)(a) — Energy products used for the generation of electricity — Obligation to exempt — Article 15(1)(c) — Energy products used for combined heat and power generation — Option to exempt or reduce the level of taxation — Natural gas intended for use in the cogeneration of heat and electricity)

11

2018/C 161/14

Case C-64/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Saey Home & Garden NV/SA v Lusavouga-Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 25 — Existence of a jurisdiction clause — Verbal agreement without written confirmation — Clause contained in the general terms and conditions of sale mentioned in invoices — Article 7(1)(b) — Commercial concession agreement between two companies established in different Member States in respect of the market of a third Member State — Article 7(1)(b), second indent — Determination of the court with jurisdiction — Place of performance of the obligation that is characteristic of such a contract)

12

2018/C 161/15

Case C-159/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius v Ministerul Finanţelor Publice — A.N.A.F. — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, A.N.A.F — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — A.J.F.P. Constanţa — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Fizice 2 Constanţa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Revocation of identification for VAT purposes — Obligation to pay VAT collected in the period during which the VAT identification number is revoked — Non-recognition of the right to deduct VAT relating to purchases made during that period)

13

2018/C 161/16

Case C-642/17 P: Appeal brought on 15 November 2017 by Arrigoni SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2017 in Case T-454/16 Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Battista (Arrigoni Valtaleggio)

14

2018/C 161/17

Case C-67/18 P: Appeal brought on 30 January 2018 by Dominique Bilde against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 November 2017 in Case T-633/16, Bilde v Parliament

14

2018/C 161/18

Case C-70/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 2 February 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v A and Others

16

2018/C 161/19

Case C-72/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Pamplona (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2018 — Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui v Consejería de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra

17

2018/C 161/20

Case C-84/18 P: Appeal brought on 6 February 2018 by Sophie Montel against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 November 2017 in Case T-634/16, Montel v Parliament

17

2018/C 161/21

Case C-86/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

19

2018/C 161/22

Case C-87/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

20

2018/C 161/23

Case C-88/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

20

2018/C 161/24

Case C-95/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 February 2018 — Sociale Verzekeringsbank; other parties: F. van den Berg and H.D. Giesen

21

2018/C 161/25

Case C-96/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 February 2018 — Sociale Verzekeringsbank; other party: C.E. Franzen

22

2018/C 161/26

Case C-100/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Línea Directa Aseguradora, S.A. v Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros

23

2018/C 161/27

Case C-103/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 8 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Domingo Sánchez Ruiz v Comunidad de Madrid (Servicio Madrileño de Salud)

23

2018/C 161/28

Case C-105/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Asociación Española de la Industria Eléctrica (UNESA) v Administración General del Estado

25

2018/C 161/29

Case C-106/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Energía de Galicia (Engasa), S.A. v Administración General del Estado

26

2018/C 161/30

Case C-107/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Duerocanto, S.L. v Administración General del Estado

27

2018/C 161/31

Case C-108/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Corporación Acciona Hidráulica (Acciona), S.L.U. v Administración General del Estado

28

2018/C 161/32

Case C-109/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Associació de Productors i Usuaris d’Energia Elèctrica v Administración General del Estado

29

2018/C 161/33

Case C-110/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — José Manuel Burgos Pérez and María del Amor Guinea Bueno v Administración General del Estado

30

2018/C 161/34

Case C-111/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Endesa Generación, S.A. v Administración General del Estado

30

2018/C 161/35

Case C-112/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Asociación de Productores de Energías Renovables (APPA) v Administración General del Estado

31

2018/C 161/36

Case C-113/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Parc del Segre, S.A. and Others v Administración General del Estado

32

2018/C 161/37

Case C-117/18 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2018 by PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) made on 14 December 2017 in Case T-849/16, PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH v European Commission

33

2018/C 161/38

Case C-119/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Telefónica Móviles España, S.A.U. v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC)

34

2018/C 161/39

Case C-120/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Orange España, S.A.U. v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC)

35

2018/C 161/40

Case C-121/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 14 February 2018 — Vodafone España, S.A.U. v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC)

36

2018/C 161/41

Case C-123/18 P: Appeal brought on 15 February 2018 against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-692/15, HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH v Council of the European Union

37

2018/C 161/42

Case C-132/18 P: Appeal brought on 15 February 2018 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-728/16, Tuerck v Commission

38

2018/C 161/43

Case C-142/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Skype Communications Sàrl v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

39

2018/C 161/44

Case C-145/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Regards Photographiques SARL v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

40

2018/C 161/45

Case C-149/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 26 February 2018 — Agostinho da Silva Martins v Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA

41

2018/C 161/46

Case C-152/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-712/15, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank

41

2018/C 161/47

Case C-153/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-52/16, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank

42

2018/C 161/48

Case C-202/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Ilmārs Rimšēvičs v Republic of Latvia

43

2018/C 161/49

Case C-238/18: Action brought on 3 April 2018 — European Central Bank v Republic of Latvia

44

General Court

2018/C 161/50

Case T-540/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — De Capitani v Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning an ongoing legislative procedure — Trilogues — Four-column tables relating to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Europol and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JAI and 2005/681/JAI — Partial refusal of access — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — First subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — No general presumption that access should be refused to four-column tables drawn up for the purposes of trilogues)

46

2018/C 161/51

Case T-242/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — 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 covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Applicant’s name maintained on the list — Obligation to state reasons — Objection of illegality — Proportionality — Legal basis — Manifest error of assessment)

47

2018/C 161/52

Case T-442/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Šroubárna Ždánice v Council (Application for repayment of anti-dumping duties — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China or consigned from Malaysia — Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 — Jurisdiction of the national court — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court)

47

2018/C 161/53

Case T-579/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — HJ v EMA (Civil service — Temporary staff — Refusal to renew a fixed-term contract — First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS — Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as an indefinite contract — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Duty to state reasons — Right to be heard — Appraisal report — Duty to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

48

2018/C 161/54

Case T-734/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Argyraki v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Calculation of years — Taking into account periods of service completed as a member of the auxiliary staff — Conditions — Legal basis)

49

2018/C 161/55

Case T-60/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Safe Skies v EUIPO — Travel Sentry (TSA LOCK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark TSA LOCK — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

50

2018/C 161/56

Case T-272/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Webgarden v EUIPO (Dating Bracelet) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Dating Bracelet — Absolute ground 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) — Previous EUIPO practice — Equal treatment — Legal certainty)

50

2018/C 161/57

Case T-246/16: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Aurora Group Danmark v EUIPO — Retail Distribution (PANZER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

51

2018/C 161/58

Case T-567/17: Order of the General Court of 13 March 2018 — Disney Enterprises v EUIPO — Di Molfetta (DiSNEY FROZEN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

51

2018/C 161/59

Case T-46/18: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Comune di Milano v Council (Declining of jurisdiction)

52

2018/C 161/60

Case T-109/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — VI v Commission

53

2018/C 161/61

Case T-115/18: Action brought on 26 February 2018 — Tomasz Kawałko Trofeum v EUIPO — Ferrero (KINDERPRAMS)

54

2018/C 161/62

Case T-129/18: Action brought on 01 March 2018 — HMV (Brands) v EUIPO — Our Price Records (OUR PRICE)

54

2018/C 161/63

Case T-140/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs v EUIPO (LITECRAFT)

55

2018/C 161/64

Case T-143/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Société générale v ECB

56

2018/C 161/65

Case T-144/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Crédit Agricole and Others v ECB

57

2018/C 161/66

Case T-145/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v ECB

57

2018/C 161/67

Case T-146/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — BPCE and Others v ECB

58

2018/C 161/68

Case T-149/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Arkéa Direct Bank and Others v ECB

58

2018/C 161/69

Case T-150/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — BNP Paribas v ECB

59

2018/C 161/70

Case T-156/18: Action brought on 26 February 2018 — Legutko and Poręba v Parliament

59

2018/C 161/71

Case T-163/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Amisi Kumba v Council

60

2018/C 161/72

Case T-164/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kampete v Council

61

2018/C 161/73

Case T-165/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council

61

2018/C 161/74

Case T-166/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

62

2018/C 161/75

Case T-167/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kanyama v Council

63

2018/C 161/76

Case T-168/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Numbi v Council

63

2018/C 161/77

Case T-169/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kibelisa Ngambasai v Council

64

2018/C 161/78

Case T-170/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kande Mupompa v Council

64

2018/C 161/79

Case T-171/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Boshab v Council

65

2018/C 161/80

Case T-172/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Akili Mundos v Council

65

2018/C 161/81

Case T-173/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Ramazani Shadary v Council

66

2018/C 161/82

Case T-174/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Mutondo v Council

67

2018/C 161/83

Case T-175/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Ruhorimbere v Council

67

2018/C 161/84

Case T-176/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Mende Omalanga v Council

68

2018/C 161/85

Case T-177/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kazembe Musonda v Council

68

2018/C 161/86

Case T-180/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VJ v EEAS

69

2018/C 161/87

Case T-181/18: Action brought on 9 March 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (TAKE CARE)

70

2018/C 161/88

Case T-185/18: Action brought on 14 March 2018 — Lucchini v Commission

70

2018/C 161/89

Case T-191/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)

71

2018/C 161/90

Case T-192/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)

72

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/1

---

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

(2018/C 161/01)

Last publication

OJ C 152, 30.4.2018

Past publications

OJ C 142, 23.4.2018

OJ C 134, 16.4.2018

OJ C 123, 9.4.2018

OJ C 112, 26.3.2018

OJ C 104, 19.3.2018

OJ C 94, 12.3.2018

These texts are available on:

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

---

Court of Justice

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/2

---

DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

of 13 March 2018

on official holidays and judicial vacations

(2018/C 161/02)

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 2018 to 31 October 2019, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 24(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:

| — | Christmas 2018: from Monday 17 December 2018 to Sunday 6 January 2019 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Christmas 2018: from Monday 17 December 2018 to Sunday 6 January 2019 inclusive,

| — | Easter 2019: from Monday 15 April 2019 to Sunday 28 April 2019 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter 2019: from Monday 15 April 2019 to Sunday 28 April 2019 inclusive,

| — | Summer 2019: from Tuesday 16 July 2019 to Saturday 31 August 2019 inclusive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Summer 2019: from Tuesday 16 July 2019 to Saturday 31 August 2019 inclusive.

Article 3

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

Done at Luxembourg, 13 March 2018.

Registrar

A. CALOT ESCOBAR

President

K. LENAERTS

---

General Court

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/4

---

DECISION OF THE GENERAL COURT

of 21 March 2018

on judicial vacations

(2018/C 161/03)

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 2018, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 41(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:

| — | Christmas 2018: from Monday 17 December 2018 to Sunday 6 January 2019 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Christmas 2018: from Monday 17 December 2018 to Sunday 6 January 2019 inclusive,

| — | Easter 2019: from Monday 15 April 2019 to Sunday 28 April 2019 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter 2019: from Monday 15 April 2019 to Sunday 28 April 2019 inclusive,

| — | Summer 2019: from Tuesday 16 July 2019 to Saturday 31 August 2019 inclusive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Summer 2019: from Tuesday 16 July 2019 to Saturday 31 August 2019 inclusive.

Article 2

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

Done at Luxembourg, 21 March 2018.

Registrar

E. COULON

President

M. JAEGER

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — ‘SEGRO’ Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Sárvári Járási Földhivatala (C-52/16), Günther Horváth v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal (C-113/16)

(Joined Cases C-52/16 and C-113/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Rights of usufruct over agricultural land - National legislation permitting such rights to be acquired in the future only by close family members of the owner of the land and cancelling, without providing for compensation, the rights previously acquired by legal persons or by natural persons who cannot demonstrate a close family tie with the owner of the land))

(2018/C 161/04)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:‘SEGRO’ Kft. (C-52/16), Günther Horváth (C-113/16)

Defendants: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Sárvári Járási Földhivatala (C-52/16), Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal (C-113/16)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which rights of usufruct which have previously been created over agricultural land and the holders of which do not have the status of close relation of the owner of that land are extinguished by operation of law and are, consequently, deleted from the property registers.

---

(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.

OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 — SNCF Mobilités, formerly Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) v European Commission, French Republic, Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation

(Case C-127/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of Sernam - Restructuring and recapitalisation aid, guarantees and waiving of Sernam's financial debts by SNCF - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Sale of assets en bloc - Concept of ‘sale’ - Confusion between object and price of the sale of assets en bloc - Open and transparent procedure - Private investor test - Application of that principle to an assignment of assets en bloc - Compensatory measures))

(2018/C 161/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: SNCF Mobilités, formerly Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) (represented by: P. Beurier, O. Billard, G. Fabre and V. Landes, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), French Republic, Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation (represented by: B. Vatier and F. Loubières, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders SNCF Mobilités to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Mory SA and Mory Team. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SNCF Mobilités to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Mory SA and Mory Team.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA (C-274/16), Roland Becker v Hainan Airlines Co. Ltd (C-447/16), Mohamed Barkan and Others v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA (C-448/16)

(Joint cases C-274/16, C-447/16 and C-448/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of Freedom, Security and Justice - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(1) - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(1) - Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ - Contract for the provision of services - Connecting flight operated by different air carriers - Concept of ‘place of performance’ - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Right of air passengers to compensation for denied boarding and for the long delay of a flight - Action for compensation brought against an operating air carrier not domiciled in the territory of a Member State or with which the passengers do not have contractual relations))

(2018/C 161/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: flightright GmbH (C-274/16), Roland Becker (C-447/16), Mohamed Barkan, Souad Asbai, Assia Barkan, Zakaria Barkan, Nousaiba Barkan (C-488/16)

Defendants: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA (C-274/16), Hainan Airlines Co. Ltd (C-447/16), Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA (C-448/16)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not applying to a defendant domiciled in a third State, such as the defendant in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not applying to a defendant domiciled in a third State, such as the defendant in the main proceedings.

| 2) | Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’, for the purposes of that provision, covers a claim brought by air passengers for compensation for the long delay of a connecting flight, made under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, against an operating air carrier with which the passenger concerned does not have contractual relations. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’, for the purposes of that provision, covers a claim brought by air passengers for compensation for the long delay of a connecting flight, made under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, against an operating air carrier with which the passenger concerned does not have contractual relations.

| 3) | The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 and the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a connecting flight, the ‘place of performance’ of that flight, for the purposes of those provisions, is the place of arrival of the second leg, where the carriage on both flights was operated by two different air carriers and the action for compensation for the long delay of that connecting flight under Regulation No 261/2004 is based on an irregularity which took place on the first of those flights, operated by the air carrier with which the passengers concerned do not have contractual relations. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 and the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a connecting flight, the ‘place of performance’ of that flight, for the purposes of those provisions, is the place of arrival of the second leg, where the carriage on both flights was operated by two different air carriers and the action for compensation for the long delay of that connecting flight under Regulation No 261/2004 is based on an irregularity which took place on the first of those flights, operated by the air carrier with which the passengers concerned do not have contractual relations.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV

(Case C-284/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Bilateral investment treaty concluded in 1991 between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic and still applicable between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic - Provision enabling an investor from one Contracting Party to bring proceedings before an arbitral tribunal in the event of a dispute with the other Contracting Party - Compatibility with Articles 18, 267 and 344 TFEU - Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ - Autonomy of EU law))

(2018/C 161/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Slowakische Republik

Defendant: Achmea BV

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 267 and 344 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision in an international agreement concluded between Member States, such as Article 8 of the Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member State before an arbitral tribunal whose jurisdiction that Member State has undertaken to accept.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH

(Case C-395/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community design - Article 8(1) - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Criteria for assessment - Existence of alternative designs - Consideration of the point of view of an ‘objective observer’))

(2018/C 161/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DOCERAM GmbH

Defendant: CeramTec GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

| (1) | Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine whether the features of appearance of a product are exclusively dictated by its technical function, it must be established that the technical function is the only factor which determined those features, the existence of alternative designs not being decisive in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine whether the features of appearance of a product are exclusively dictated by its technical function, it must be established that the technical function is the only factor which determined those features, the existence of alternative designs not being decisive in that regard.

| (2) | Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the relevant features of appearance of a product are solely dictated by its technical function, within the meaning of that provision, the national court must take account of all the objective circumstances relevant to each individual case. In that regard, there is no need to base those findings on the perception of an ‘objective observer’. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the relevant features of appearance of a product are solely dictated by its technical function, within the meaning of that provision, the national court must take account of all the objective circumstances relevant to each individual case. In that regard, there is no need to base those findings on the perception of an ‘objective observer’.

---

(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trapani — Italy) — Giuseppa Santoro v Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-494/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Fixed-term work - Contracts concluded with a public sector employer - Measures to penalise the misuse of fixed-term contracts - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness))

(2018/C 161/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Trapani

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Giuseppa Santoro

Defendants: Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is 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, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, on the one hand, does not punish the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts by a public sector employer through the payment of compensation to the worker concerned for the lack of conversion of the fixed-term employment relationship into an employment relationship of indefinite duration, but, on the other hand, provides for the grant of compensation of between 2,5 and 12 times the last monthly salary of that worker together with the possibility for him to obtain full compensation for the harm by demonstrating, by way of presumption, the loss of opportunities to find employment or that, if a recruitment competition had been duly organised, he would have been successful, provided that such legislation is accompanied by an effective and dissuasive penalty mechanism, a matter which is for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — E.ON Czech Holding AG v Michael Dědouch, Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda

(Case C-560/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Exclusive jurisdiction - Article 22(2) - Validity of decisions of the organs of companies or legal persons having their seat in the territory of a Member State - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State - Decision of the general meeting of a company ordering the compulsory transfer to that company’s principal shareholder of the shares held by the company’s minority shareholders and determining the consideration to be paid to them by the principal shareholder - Judicial procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of that consideration))

(2018/C 161/10)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.ON Czech Holding AG

Defendants: Michael Dědouch, Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda

Intervener: Jihočeská plynárenská, a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for review of the reasonableness of the consideration that the principal shareholder of a company is required to pay to the minority shareholders of that company in the event of the compulsory transfer of their shares to that principal shareholder comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which that company is established.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 — European Commission v FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S

(Case C-579/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Definition of ‘aid’ - Definition of ‘economic advantage’ - Market economy operator principle - Conditions governing applicability and application - Financial crisis - Successive bank bail outs - Whether account to be taken, in the assessment of the second bail out, of the risks arising from commitments entered into by a Member State in the first bail out))

(2018/C 161/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, L. Flynn and K. Blanck-Putz, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, FIH Holding and FIH Erhvervsbank v Commission (T-386/14, EU:T:2016:474); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, FIH Holding and FIH Erhvervsbank v Commission (T-386/14, EU:T:2016:474);

| 2. | Dismisses the first plea in the action before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the first plea in the action before the General Court;

| 3. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the second plea in law; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the second plea in law;

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — DW v Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra

(Case C-651/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Maternity benefit - Calculation of the amount on the basis of the income of the insured person during a reference period of 12 months - Person employed, during that period, by an EU institution - National legislation fixing the amount at issue at 70 % of the average contribution basis - Restriction on freedom of movement for workers - Principle of sincere cooperation))

(2018/C 161/12)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DW

Defendant: Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings that, for the purposes of determining the average contribution basis when calculating the amount of maternity benefit, equates the months of the reference period in which the person concerned worked in an EU institution and was not insured in that Member State with a period of unemployment and applies to them the average contribution basis in that Member State, which has the effect of substantially reducing the amount of the maternity benefit granted to that person in comparison with the amount to which she would have been entitled had she been gainfully employed in that Member State alone.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Cristal Union, the legal successor to Sucrerie de Toury SA v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-31/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 14(1)(a) - Energy products used for the generation of electricity - Obligation to exempt - Article 15(1)(c) - Energy products used for combined heat and power generation - Option to exempt or reduce the level of taxation - Natural gas intended for use in the cogeneration of heat and electricity))

(2018/C 161/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cristal Union, the legal successor to Sucrerie de Toury SA

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the compulsory exemption provided for in that provision applies to energy products used for electricity generation, when such products are used for the combined generation of electricity and heat within the meaning of Article 15(1)(c) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Saey Home & Garden NV/SA v Lusavouga-Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais SA

(Case C-64/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 25 - Existence of a jurisdiction clause - Verbal agreement without written confirmation - Clause contained in the general terms and conditions of sale mentioned in invoices - Article 7(1)(b) - Commercial concession agreement between two companies established in different Member States in respect of the market of a third Member State - Article 7(1)(b), second indent - Determination of the court with jurisdiction - Place of performance of the obligation that is characteristic of such a contract))

(2018/C 161/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Saey Home & Garden NV/SA

Defendant: Lusavouga-Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais SA

Operative part of the judgment

| (1) | Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the verifications to be made by the referring court, a jurisdiction clause, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, set out in the general conditions of sale mentioned in invoices issued by one of the contracting parties does not satisfy the requirements of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the verifications to be made by the referring court, a jurisdiction clause, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, set out in the general conditions of sale mentioned in invoices issued by one of the contracting parties does not satisfy the requirements of that provision.

| (2) | Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the court with jurisdiction, by virtue of that provision, to hear a claim for compensation relating to the termination of a commercial concession agreement concluded between two companies established and operating in two different Member States for the distribution of goods on the domestic market of a third Member State in which neither of those companies has a branch or establishment, is that of the Member State in which the place of the main supply of services, as is clear from the provisions of the contract and, in the absence of such provisions, the actual performance of that contract, and where it cannot be determined on that basis, the place where the agent is domiciled. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the court with jurisdiction, by virtue of that provision, to hear a claim for compensation relating to the termination of a commercial concession agreement concluded between two companies established and operating in two different Member States for the distribution of goods on the domestic market of a third Member State in which neither of those companies has a branch or establishment, is that of the Member State in which the place of the main supply of services, as is clear from the provisions of the contract and, in the absence of such provisions, the actual performance of that contract, and where it cannot be determined on that basis, the place where the agent is domiciled.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius v Ministerul Finanţelor Publice — A.N.A.F. — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, A.N.A.F — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — A.J.F.P. Constanţa — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Fizice 2 Constanţa

(Case C-159/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Revocation of identification for VAT purposes - Obligation to pay VAT collected in the period during which the VAT identification number is revoked - Non-recognition of the right to deduct VAT relating to purchases made during that period))

(2018/C 161/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius

Respondents: Ministerul Finanţelor Publice — A.N.A.F. — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, A.N.A.F — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — A.J.F.P. Constanţa — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Fizice 2 Constanţa

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167 to 169 and 179, Articles 213(1) and 214(1), and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows tax authorities to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax when it is established that, on account of the alleged infringements committed by that person, the tax authorities could not have access to the information necessary to establish that the substantive requirements giving rise to the right to deduct input value added tax paid by that taxable person have been satisfied or that that person acted fraudulently in order to enjoy that right, a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/14

---

Appeal brought on 15 November 2017 by Arrigoni SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2017 in Case T-454/16 Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Battista (Arrigoni Valtaleggio)

(Case C-642/17 P)

(2018/C 161/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Arrigoni SpA (represented by: P. Di Gravio, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Arrigoni Battista SpA

By Order of 22 March 2018, the Court (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Arrigoni SpA to bear its own costs.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/14

---

Appeal brought on 30 January 2018 by Dominique Bilde against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 November 2017 in Case T-633/16, Bilde v Parliament

(Case C-67/18 P)

(2018/C 161/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Dominique Bilde (represented by: G. Sauveur, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should reverse the judgment under appeal and thus:

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016, notified on 6 July 2016, stating that ‘a sum of EUR 40 320 was wrongly paid to Ms Dominique Bilde’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the institution’s accounting officer to recover that sum; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016, notified on 6 July 2016, stating that ‘a sum of EUR 40 320 was wrongly paid to Ms Dominique Bilde’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the institution’s accounting officer to recover that sum;

| — | annul also debit note No 2016-889 signed by the Director-General for Finance on 29 June 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul also debit note No 2016-889 signed by the Director-General for Finance on 29 June 2016;

| — | make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant as compensation for the non-material harm that she has suffered as a result of the unfounded accusations made before the enquiry was finalised, the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life caused by the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant as compensation for the non-material harm that she has suffered as a result of the unfounded accusations made before the enquiry was finalised, the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life caused by the contested decision;

| — | make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant in respect of the costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant in respect of the costs of the proceedings;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | The first ground alleges lack of competence on the part of the author of the act:






  — | it is the Bureau of the European Parliament, and not the Secretary-General, that is responsible for financial decisions; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The first ground alleges lack of competence on the part of the author of the act:

—

it is the Bureau of the European Parliament, and not the Secretary-General, that is responsible for financial decisions;

| — | there was no delegation of powers by the Secretary-General; |
| --- | --- |

—

there was no delegation of powers by the Secretary-General;

| — | objection of illegality on the basis of infringement of the independence of members of the European Parliament and the right to an impartial process. |
| --- | --- |

—

objection of illegality on the basis of infringement of the independence of members of the European Parliament and the right to an impartial process.

| 2. | The second ground alleges infringement of the principle of ‘electa una via’:






  — | the President of the Parliament referred the case to OLAF and also initiated legal proceedings in France. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The second ground alleges infringement of the principle of ‘electa una via’:

—

the President of the Parliament referred the case to OLAF and also initiated legal proceedings in France.

| 3. | The third ground alleges infringement of the rights of defence:






  — | the President of the Parliament breached the presumption of innocence; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The third ground alleges infringement of the rights of defence:

—

the President of the Parliament breached the presumption of innocence;

| — | the Parliament’s administration was both judge and party; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Parliament’s administration was both judge and party;

| — | the Parliament varied the claims invoked throughout the course of the procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Parliament varied the claims invoked throughout the course of the procedure;

| — | the Secretary-General refused the appellant a hearing. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Secretary-General refused the appellant a hearing.

| 4. | The fourth ground alleges reversal of the burden of proof:






  — | the Parliament required the appellant to prove that she had not engaged in any wrongdoing even though it had no evidence to substantiate any serious suggestion that such wrongdoing had occurred. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

The fourth ground alleges reversal of the burden of proof:

—

the Parliament required the appellant to prove that she had not engaged in any wrongdoing even though it had no evidence to substantiate any serious suggestion that such wrongdoing had occurred.

| 5. | The fifth ground alleges failure to state adequate reasons:






  — | the sole ground relied on was the publication of an organisational chart which lacked any probative value. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

The fifth ground alleges failure to state adequate reasons:

—

the sole ground relied on was the publication of an organisational chart which lacked any probative value.

| 6. | The sixth ground alleges infringement of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations:






  — | there were no rules laying down a list of documents to be submitted; thus the appellant was subject to the arbitrary actions of the Parliament. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

The sixth ground alleges infringement of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations:

—

there were no rules laying down a list of documents to be submitted; thus the appellant was subject to the arbitrary actions of the Parliament.

| 7. | The seventh ground alleges prejudice to the civil rights of parliamentary assistants:






  — | the Parliament prohibits assistants from engaging in political activities. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

The seventh ground alleges prejudice to the civil rights of parliamentary assistants:

—

the Parliament prohibits assistants from engaging in political activities.

| 8. | The eighth ground alleges discriminatory treatment, ‘Fumus persecutionis’, and misuse of power:






  — | the appellant has been subjected to this procedure by reason of the political hostility of the President of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.

The eighth ground alleges discriminatory treatment, ‘Fumus persecutionis’, and misuse of power:

—

the appellant has been subjected to this procedure by reason of the political hostility of the President of the European Parliament.

| 9. | The ninth ground alleges prejudice to the independence of members of the European Parliament:






  — | the work of parliamentary assistants is not limited to legislative work. |
| --- | --- | --- |

9.

The ninth ground alleges prejudice to the independence of members of the European Parliament:

—

the work of parliamentary assistants is not limited to legislative work.

| 10. | The tenth ground alleges a lack of factual basis:






  — | the Parliament merely stated that the documents supplied by the appellant had no probative value even though those documents provided evidence of the work carried out by the assistant; |
| --- | --- | --- |

10.

The tenth ground alleges a lack of factual basis:

—

the Parliament merely stated that the documents supplied by the appellant had no probative value even though those documents provided evidence of the work carried out by the assistant;

| — | the Parliament is unable to substantiate its claims. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Parliament is unable to substantiate its claims.

| 11. | The eleventh ground alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality:






  — | the organisational chart (the starting point of the proceedings instituted by the President of the Parliament) was published in February 2015, although the recovery of sums unduly paid dates back to October 2014. |
| --- | --- | --- |

11.

The eleventh ground alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality:

—

the organisational chart (the starting point of the proceedings instituted by the President of the Parliament) was published in February 2015, although the recovery of sums unduly paid dates back to October 2014.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 2 February 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v A and Others

(Case C-70/18)

(2018/C 161/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Other parties: A, B, P

Questions referred

| 1. | (a) | Must Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 (1) and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 1 be interpreted as not precluding a national rule providing for the general processing and storage of the biometric data of third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals, in a filing system within the meaning of Article 2(a) and (b) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281[, p. 31]) on the ground that that national rule does not go further than is necessary to achieve the legitimate objective, pursued by that rule, of preventing and combating identity fraud and document fraud? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Must Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 (1) and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 1 be interpreted as not precluding a national rule providing for the general processing and storage of the biometric data of third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals, in a filing system within the meaning of Article 2(a) and (b) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281[, p. 31]) on the ground that that national rule does not go further than is necessary to achieve the legitimate objective, pursued by that rule, of preventing and combating identity fraud and document fraud?

| (b) | Is it significant in this regard that the duration of the storage of the biometric data is linked to the duration of the lawful and/or illegal stay of third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is it significant in this regard that the duration of the storage of the biometric data is linked to the duration of the lawful and/or illegal stay of third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals?

| 2. | Must Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 be interpreted as meaning that a national rule does not constitute a restriction, within the meaning of those provisions, if the effect of that national rule on access to employment, as referred to in those provisions, is too uncertain and too indirect to be regarded as constituting an obstacle to such access? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 be interpreted as meaning that a national rule does not constitute a restriction, within the meaning of those provisions, if the effect of that national rule on access to employment, as referred to in those provisions, is too uncertain and too indirect to be regarded as constituting an obstacle to such access?

| 3. | (a) | If the answer to Question 2 is that a national rule which makes it possible to make available to third parties the biometric data of third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals, contained in a filing system, with a view to the prevention, detection and investigation of offences — whether or not of a terrorist nature — constitutes a new restriction, must Article 52(1), read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 8, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union then be interpreted as precluding such a national rule? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

(a)

If the answer to Question 2 is that a national rule which makes it possible to make available to third parties the biometric data of third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals, contained in a filing system, with a view to the prevention, detection and investigation of offences — whether or not of a terrorist nature — constitutes a new restriction, must Article 52(1), read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 8, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union then be interpreted as precluding such a national rule?

| (b) | Is it significant in this regard that that third-country national, at the time when he is detained on suspicion of having committed an offence, has in his possession the residence document on which his biometric data are stored? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is it significant in this regard that that third-country national, at the time when he is detained on suspicion of having committed an offence, has in his possession the residence document on which his biometric data are stored?

---

(1)  Decisions of the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Pamplona (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2018 — Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui v Consejería de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra

(Case C-72/18)

(2018/C 161/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Pamplona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui

Defendant: Consejería de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra

Question referred

| 1.- | Must Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP approved by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (1) be interpreted as precluding a regional legislative provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which expressly excludes the award and payment to staff employed by the Public Administration of Navarre who are classified as ‘employed under an administrative contract’ (a fixed-term contract) of particular additional remuneration, on the grounds that the additional remuneration in question constitutes remuneration for promotion and development in a professional career that is open only to staff classified as ‘established public officials’ (with a contract of indefinite duration)? |
| --- | --- |

1.-

Must Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP approved by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (1) be interpreted as precluding a regional legislative provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which expressly excludes the award and payment to staff employed by the Public Administration of Navarre who are classified as ‘employed under an administrative contract’ (a fixed-term contract) of particular additional remuneration, on the grounds that the additional remuneration in question constitutes remuneration for promotion and development in a professional career that is open only to staff classified as ‘established public officials’ (with a contract of indefinite duration)?

---

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

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/17

---

Appeal brought on 6 February 2018 by Sophie Montel against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 November 2017 in Case T-634/16, Montel v Parliament

(Case C-84/18 P)

(2018/C 161/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Sophie Montel (represented by: G. Sauveur, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should reverse the judgment under appeal and thus:

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 24 June 2016, notified on 6 July 2016, stating that ‘a sum of EUR 77 276,42 was wrongly paid to Ms Sophie Montel’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the institution’s accounting officer to recover that sum; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 24 June 2016, notified on 6 July 2016, stating that ‘a sum of EUR 77 276,42 was wrongly paid to Ms Sophie Montel’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the institution’s accounting officer to recover that sum;

| — | annul also debit note No 2016-897 signed by the Director-General for Finance on 4 July 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul also debit note No 2016-897 signed by the Director-General for Finance on 4 July 2016;

| — | make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant as compensation for the non-material harm that she has suffered as a result of the unfounded accusations made before the enquiry was finalised, the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life occasioned by the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant as compensation for the non-material harm that she has suffered as a result of the unfounded accusations made before the enquiry was finalised, the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life occasioned by the contested decision;

| — | make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant in respect of the costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant in respect of the costs of the proceedings;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | The first ground alleges lack of competence of the author of the act:






  — | it is the Bureau of the European Parliament, and not the Secretary-General, that is responsible for financial decisions; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The first ground alleges lack of competence of the author of the act:

—

it is the Bureau of the European Parliament, and not the Secretary-General, that is responsible for financial decisions;

| — | there was no delegation of powers by the Secretary-General; |
| --- | --- |

—

there was no delegation of powers by the Secretary-General;

| — | objection of illegality on the basis of infringement of the independence of members of the European Parliament and of the right to an impartial process. |
| --- | --- |

—

objection of illegality on the basis of infringement of the independence of members of the European Parliament and of the right to an impartial process.

| 2. | The second ground alleges infringement of the principle of ‘electa una via’:






  — | the President of the Parliament referred the case to OLAF and also initiated legal proceedings in France. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The second ground alleges infringement of the principle of ‘electa una via’:

—

the President of the Parliament referred the case to OLAF and also initiated legal proceedings in France.

| 3. | The third ground alleges infringement of the rights of defence:






  — | the President of the Parliament breached the presumption of innocence; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The third ground alleges infringement of the rights of defence:

—

the President of the Parliament breached the presumption of innocence;

| — | the Parliament’s administration was both judge and party; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Parliament’s administration was both judge and party;

| — | the Parliament varied the claims invoked throughout the course of the procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Parliament varied the claims invoked throughout the course of the procedure;

| — | the Secretary-General refused the appellant a hearing. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Secretary-General refused the appellant a hearing.

| 4. | The fourth ground alleges reversal of the burden of proof:






  — | the Parliament required the appellant to prove that she had not engaged in any wrongdoing even though it had no evidence to substantiate any serious suggestion that such wrongdoing had occurred. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

The fourth ground alleges reversal of the burden of proof:

—

the Parliament required the appellant to prove that she had not engaged in any wrongdoing even though it had no evidence to substantiate any serious suggestion that such wrongdoing had occurred.

| 5. | The fifth ground alleges failure to state adequate reasons:






  — | the sole ground relied on was the publication of an organisational chart which lacked any probative value. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

The fifth ground alleges failure to state adequate reasons:

—

the sole ground relied on was the publication of an organisational chart which lacked any probative value.

| 6. | The sixth ground alleges infringement of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations:






  — | there was no rule laying down a list of documents to be submitted; thus the appellant was subject to the arbitrary actions of the Parliament. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

The sixth ground alleges infringement of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations:

—

there was no rule laying down a list of documents to be submitted; thus the appellant was subject to the arbitrary actions of the Parliament.

| 7. | The seventh ground alleges prejudice to the civil rights of parliamentary assistants:






  — | the Parliament prohibits assistants from engaging in political activities. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

The seventh ground alleges prejudice to the civil rights of parliamentary assistants:

—

the Parliament prohibits assistants from engaging in political activities.

| 8. | The eighth ground alleges discriminatory treatment, ‘Fumus persecutionis’, and misuse of power:






  — | the appellant has been subjected to this procedure by reason of the political hostility of the President of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.

The eighth ground alleges discriminatory treatment, ‘Fumus persecutionis’, and misuse of power:

—

the appellant has been subjected to this procedure by reason of the political hostility of the President of the European Parliament.

| 9. | The ninth ground alleges prejudice to the independence of members of the European Parliament:






  — | the work of parliamentary assistants is not limited to legislative work. |
| --- | --- | --- |

9.

The ninth ground alleges prejudice to the independence of members of the European Parliament:

—

the work of parliamentary assistants is not limited to legislative work.

| 10. | The tenth ground alleges a lack of factual basis:






  — | the Parliament merely stated that the documents supplied by the appellant had no probative value even though those documents provided evidence of the work carried out by the assistant; |
| --- | --- | --- |

10.

The tenth ground alleges a lack of factual basis:

—

the Parliament merely stated that the documents supplied by the appellant had no probative value even though those documents provided evidence of the work carried out by the assistant;

| — | the Parliament is unable to substantiate its claims. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Parliament is unable to substantiate its claims.

| 11. | The eleventh ground alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality:






  — | the organisational chart (the starting point of the proceedings instituted by the President of the Parliament) was published in February 2015, although the recovery of sums unduly paid dates back to August 2014. |
| --- | --- | --- |

11.

The eleventh ground alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality:

—

the organisational chart (the starting point of the proceedings instituted by the President of the Parliament) was published in February 2015, although the recovery of sums unduly paid dates back to August 2014.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/19

---

Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-86/18)

(2018/C 161/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, F. Thiran, G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, by failing to bring into force by 18 April 2016 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 51 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to bring into force by 18 April 2016 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 51 of that directive;

| — | Impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 12 920 per day as of the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil its obligation to communicate to the Commission the measures transposing Directive 2014/23/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 12 920 per day as of the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil its obligation to communicate to the Commission the measures transposing Directive 2014/23/EU;

| — | Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Under Article 51(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU, the Member States were required to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Given that Luxembourg has not communicated the measures transposing the directive, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under Article 51(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU, the Member States were required to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Given that Luxembourg has not communicated the measures transposing the directive, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice

| 2. | The Commission in its action proposes that a daily penalty payment of EUR 12 920 be imposed on Luxembourg. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated to take into account the seriousness and the duration of the infringement and the penalty payment’s dissuasive effect, in the light of that Member State’s capacity to pay it. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission in its action proposes that a daily penalty payment of EUR 12 920 be imposed on Luxembourg. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated to take into account the seriousness and the duration of the infringement and the penalty payment’s dissuasive effect, in the light of that Member State’s capacity to pay it.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/20

---

Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-87/18)

(2018/C 161/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, F. Thiran, G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents, acting as Agent(s))

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, by failing to bring into force by 18 April 2016 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65) or, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 90(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to bring into force by 18 April 2016 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65) or, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 90(1) of that directive;

| — | Impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 11 628 per day as of the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil its obligation to communicate to the Commission the measures transposing Directive 2014/24/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 11 628 per day as of the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil its obligation to communicate to the Commission the measures transposing Directive 2014/24/EU;

| — | Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Under Article 90(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU, the Member States were required to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Given that Luxembourg has not communicated the measures transposing the directive, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under Article 90(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU, the Member States were required to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Given that Luxembourg has not communicated the measures transposing the directive, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.

| 2. | The Commission in its action proposes that a daily penalty payment of EUR 11 628 be imposed on Luxembourg. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated to take into account the seriousness and the duration of the infringement and the penalty payment’s dissuasive effect, in the light of that Member State’s capacity to pay it. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission in its action proposes that a daily penalty payment of EUR 11 628 be imposed on Luxembourg. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated to take into account the seriousness and the duration of the infringement and the penalty payment’s dissuasive effect, in the light of that Member State’s capacity to pay it.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/20

---

Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-88/18)

(2018/C 161/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, F. Thiran, G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, by failing to bring into force by 18 April 2016 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243) or, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to bring into force by 18 April 2016 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243) or, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106(1) of that directive;

| — | Impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 11 628 per day as of the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil its obligation to communicate to the Commission the measures transposing Directive 2014/25/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 11 628 per day as of the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil its obligation to communicate to the Commission the measures transposing Directive 2014/25/EU;

| — | Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Under Article 106(1) of Directive 2014/25/EU, the Member States were required to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Given that Luxembourg has not communicated the measures transposing the directive, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under Article 106(1) of Directive 2014/25/EU, the Member States were required to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Given that Luxembourg has not communicated the measures transposing the directive, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.

| 2. | The Commission in its action proposes that a daily penalty payment of EUR 11 628 be imposed on Luxembourg. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated to take into account the seriousness and the duration of the infringement and the penalty payment’s dissuasive effect, in the light of that Member State’s capacity to pay it. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission in its action proposes that a daily penalty payment of EUR 11 628 be imposed on Luxembourg. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated to take into account the seriousness and the duration of the infringement and the penalty payment’s dissuasive effect, in the light of that Member State’s capacity to pay it.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 February 2018 — Sociale Verzekeringsbank; other parties: F. van den Berg and H.D. Giesen

(Case C-95/18)

(2018/C 161/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Svb)

Other parties: F. van den Berg and H.D. Giesen

Questions referred

| 1. | (a) | Must Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, in cases such as those at issue here, those provisions preclude a national rule such as Article 6a, introductory sentence and (b), of the AOW? (1) That rule means that a resident of the Netherlands is not insured for purposes of the social security scheme of that State of residence if that resident works in another Member State and is subject to the social security legislation of the State of employment on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71. (2) The present cases are characterised by the fact that, on the basis of the legislation of the State of employment, the persons concerned do not qualify for an old-age pension because of the limited scope of their work there. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Must Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, in cases such as those at issue here, those provisions preclude a national rule such as Article 6a, introductory sentence and (b), of the AOW? (1) That rule means that a resident of the Netherlands is not insured for purposes of the social security scheme of that State of residence if that resident works in another Member State and is subject to the social security legislation of the State of employment on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71. (2) The present cases are characterised by the fact that, on the basis of the legislation of the State of employment, the persons concerned do not qualify for an old-age pension because of the limited scope of their work there.

| (b) | For the purpose of the answer to Question 1(a), is it significant that, for a resident of a State of residence which, under Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, is not the competent State, there is no obligation to pay contributions under the social security schemes of that State of residence? For the periods during which that resident works in another Member State, he comes exclusively under the social security system of the State of employment by virtue of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, and in such a case Netherlands national legislation does not provide for an obligation to pay contributions either. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

For the purpose of the answer to Question 1(a), is it significant that, for a resident of a State of residence which, under Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, is not the competent State, there is no obligation to pay contributions under the social security schemes of that State of residence? For the periods during which that resident works in another Member State, he comes exclusively under the social security system of the State of employment by virtue of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, and in such a case Netherlands national legislation does not provide for an obligation to pay contributions either.

| 2. | For the purpose of the answer to Question 1, is it significant that the possibility existed for the parties concerned to take out voluntary insurance under the AOW, or that the possibility existed for them to request the Svb to conclude an agreement as referred to in Article 17 of Regulation No 1408/71? |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the purpose of the answer to Question 1, is it significant that the possibility existed for the parties concerned to take out voluntary insurance under the AOW, or that the possibility existed for them to request the Svb to conclude an agreement as referred to in Article 17 of Regulation No 1408/71?

| 3. | Does Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71 preclude someone such as Mr Giesen’s wife, who, prior to 1 January 1989, on the basis solely of the national legislation in her country of residence, the Netherlands, was insured under the AOW, from building an entitlement to old-age benefits on the basis of that insurance, in relation to periods during which, pursuant to that provision of the regulation, she was subject, by reason of work carried out in another Member State, to the legislation of that State of employment? Or must entitlement to a benefit under the AOW be regarded as an entitlement to a benefit which, under national legislation, is not subject to conditions relating to paid employment or to insurance within the meaning of the Bosmann
   (3) judgment, with the result that the line of reasoning followed in that judgment can be applied in her case? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71 preclude someone such as Mr Giesen’s wife, who, prior to 1 January 1989, on the basis solely of the national legislation in her country of residence, the Netherlands, was insured under the AOW, from building an entitlement to old-age benefits on the basis of that insurance, in relation to periods during which, pursuant to that provision of the regulation, she was subject, by reason of work carried out in another Member State, to the legislation of that State of employment? Or must entitlement to a benefit under the AOW be regarded as an entitlement to a benefit which, under national legislation, is not subject to conditions relating to paid employment or to insurance within the meaning of the Bosmann
   (3) judgment, with the result that the line of reasoning followed in that judgment can be applied in her case?

---

(1)  General Law on Old-Age Pensions.

(2)  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 members of their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).

(3)  C-352/06, EU:C:2008:290.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 February 2018 — Sociale Verzekeringsbank; other party: C.E. Franzen

(Case C-96/18)

(2018/C 161/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Svb)

Other party: C.E. Franzen

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue here, those provisions preclude a national rule such as Article 6a, introductory sentence and (b), of the AKW? (1) That rule means that a resident of the Netherlands is not insured for purposes of the social security scheme of that State of residence if that resident works in another Member State and is subject to the social security legislation of the State of employment on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71. (2) The present case is characterised by the fact that, on the basis of the legislation of the State of employment, the interested party does not qualify for child benefit because of the limited scope of her work there? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue here, those provisions preclude a national rule such as Article 6a, introductory sentence and (b), of the AKW? (1) That rule means that a resident of the Netherlands is not insured for purposes of the social security scheme of that State of residence if that resident works in another Member State and is subject to the social security legislation of the State of employment on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71. (2) The present case is characterised by the fact that, on the basis of the legislation of the State of employment, the interested party does not qualify for child benefit because of the limited scope of her work there?

| 2. | For the purpose of the answer to Question 1, is it significant that the possibility existed for the interested party to request the Svb to conclude an agreement as referred to in Article 17 of Regulation No 1408/71? |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the purpose of the answer to Question 1, is it significant that the possibility existed for the interested party to request the Svb to conclude an agreement as referred to in Article 17 of Regulation No 1408/71?

---

(1)  General Law on Child Benefits.

(2)  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 members of their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1971(II), p 416).

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Línea Directa Aseguradora, S.A. v Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros

(Case C-100/18)

(2018/C 161/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Línea Directa Aseguradora, S.A.

Defendant: Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, (1) preclude an interpretation that includes in the compulsory insurance cover the damage caused by a fire in a stationary vehicle when the fire has its origin in the mechanisms necessary to performing the transport function of the vehicle? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, (1) preclude an interpretation that includes in the compulsory insurance cover the damage caused by a fire in a stationary vehicle when the fire has its origin in the mechanisms necessary to performing the transport function of the vehicle?

| 2. | If the answer to the question above is negative, does Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, preclude an interpretation that includes in the compulsory insurance cover the damage caused by a fire in a vehicle when the fire cannot be linked to previous motion, in such a way that no connection with a journey can be discerned? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the question above is negative, does Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, preclude an interpretation that includes in the compulsory insurance cover the damage caused by a fire in a vehicle when the fire cannot be linked to previous motion, in such a way that no connection with a journey can be discerned?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is negative, does Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, preclude an interpretation that includes in the compulsory insurance cover the damage caused by a fire in a vehicle when the vehicle is parked in a closed private garage? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is negative, does Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, preclude an interpretation that includes in the compulsory insurance cover the damage caused by a fire in a vehicle when the vehicle is parked in a closed private garage?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 8 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Domingo Sánchez Ruiz v Comunidad de Madrid (Servicio Madrileño de Salud)

(Case C-103/18)

(2018/C 161/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 8 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Domingo Sánchez Ruiz

Defendant: Comunidad de Madrid (Servicio Madrileño de Salud)

Questions referred

| 1. | Can a situation such as that described in the present case (in which the public-sector employer fails to observe the statutory time limits and thus either permits successive temporary contracts or preserves the temporary nature of the appointment by changing the nature of the appointment from occasional to interim or replacement) be considered an abusive use of successive appointments and therefore be regarded as a situation described in Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can a situation such as that described in the present case (in which the public-sector employer fails to observe the statutory time limits and thus either permits successive temporary contracts or preserves the temporary nature of the appointment by changing the nature of the appointment from occasional to interim or replacement) be considered an abusive use of successive appointments and therefore be regarded as a situation described in Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC? (1)

| 2. | Must the provisions in the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work in the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, in conjunction with the principle of effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding national procedural rules that require a fixed-term worker actively to challenge or appeal against all the successive appointments and terminations of employment as the only way in which to benefit from the protection of the EU Directive and claim the rights conferred on him by EU law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the provisions in the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work in the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, in conjunction with the principle of effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding national procedural rules that require a fixed-term worker actively to challenge or appeal against all the successive appointments and terminations of employment as the only way in which to benefit from the protection of the EU Directive and claim the rights conferred on him by EU law?

| 3. | In view of the fact that, in the public sector and in the provision of essential services, the necessity of providing cover for vacancies, sickness, holidays ... is essentially ‘permanent’, and given that the concept of ‘objective reason’ justifying a fixed-term appointment has to be delimited:






  a) | Can it be held to be contrary to Directive 1999/70/EC (Clause 5(1)(a)) and, therefore, that there is no objective reason, when a fixed-term worker is employed under an uninterrupted succession of ‘contratos de interinidad’ (temporary replacement contracts), working all or nearly all the days of the year, under a succession of consecutive appointments/engagements that continue on a completely stable basis for years, and the stated grounds for engaging the worker are always satisfied? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

In view of the fact that, in the public sector and in the provision of essential services, the necessity of providing cover for vacancies, sickness, holidays ... is essentially ‘permanent’, and given that the concept of ‘objective reason’ justifying a fixed-term appointment has to be delimited:

a)

Can it be held to be contrary to Directive 1999/70/EC (Clause 5(1)(a)) and, therefore, that there is no objective reason, when a fixed-term worker is employed under an uninterrupted succession of ‘contratos de interinidad’ (temporary replacement contracts), working all or nearly all the days of the year, under a succession of consecutive appointments/engagements that continue on a completely stable basis for years, and the stated grounds for engaging the worker are always satisfied?

| b) | Must the need be considered permanent rather than temporary, and therefore not to be covered as an ‘objective reason’ within the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a), having regard either to the parameters described above, that is to say, the existence of countless appointments and engagements that extend over a period of years, or to the existence of a structural defect that is reflected in the percentage of temporary appointments in the sector in question, when those needs are as a general rule always met by temporary workers, so that this has become an essential and long-term element of the operation of the public service? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Must the need be considered permanent rather than temporary, and therefore not to be covered as an ‘objective reason’ within the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a), having regard either to the parameters described above, that is to say, the existence of countless appointments and engagements that extend over a period of years, or to the existence of a structural defect that is reflected in the percentage of temporary appointments in the sector in question, when those needs are as a general rule always met by temporary workers, so that this has become an essential and long-term element of the operation of the public service?

| c) | Or is it to be understood that, in essence, in order to determine the permitted limit for temporary appointments, regard must be had only to the letter of the legislation that covers the employment of such fixed-term workers, when it states that they may [Or. 26] be taken on on grounds of necessity, urgency or for the development of programmes of a temporary, cyclical or extraordinary nature: in short, that in order for an objective reason to be deemed to exist, such employment must meet these exceptional circumstances, and that this ceases to be the case, and use therefore constitutes misuse, when it is no longer isolated, occasional or ad hoc? |
| --- | --- |

c)

Or is it to be understood that, in essence, in order to determine the permitted limit for temporary appointments, regard must be had only to the letter of the legislation that covers the employment of such fixed-term workers, when it states that they may [Or. 26] be taken on on grounds of necessity, urgency or for the development of programmes of a temporary, cyclical or extraordinary nature: in short, that in order for an objective reason to be deemed to exist, such employment must meet these exceptional circumstances, and that this ceases to be the case, and use therefore constitutes misuse, when it is no longer isolated, occasional or ad hoc?

| 4. | Is it compatible with the Framework Directive annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC to regard grounds of need, urgency or the development of programmes of a temporary, interim or extraordinary nature as an objective reason for appointing and successively reappointing IT specialists on temporary regulated terms where these public employees are performing the normal functions of permanent regulated employees on a permanent and regular basis, and the employing Administration neither establishes maximum limits to such appointments nor fulfils its legal obligations to use permanent staff to cover these posts and meet these needs, and no equivalent measure is established to prevent and avoid misuse of successive temporary appointments, with the result that IT specialists employed on temporary regulated terms continue to carry out these duties for periods that, in the present case, amount to an uninterrupted duration of 17 years? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it compatible with the Framework Directive annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC to regard grounds of need, urgency or the development of programmes of a temporary, interim or extraordinary nature as an objective reason for appointing and successively reappointing IT specialists on temporary regulated terms where these public employees are performing the normal functions of permanent regulated employees on a permanent and regular basis, and the employing Administration neither establishes maximum limits to such appointments nor fulfils its legal obligations to use permanent staff to cover these posts and meet these needs, and no equivalent measure is established to prevent and avoid misuse of successive temporary appointments, with the result that IT specialists employed on temporary regulated terms continue to carry out these duties for periods that, in the present case, amount to an uninterrupted duration of 17 years?

| 5. | Are the provisions in the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work in the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC and the interpretation of that Agreement by the CJEU compatible with the case-law of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain), insofar as it fixes the existence of an objective reason for an appointment by reference to the time limit to the appointment, without regard to other parameters, or finds that there can be no comparison made with a career public official because of the different legal rules covering them and different access routes or because career officials are permanently established but employees recruited to cover vacancies hold temporary appointments? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are the provisions in the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work in the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC and the interpretation of that Agreement by the CJEU compatible with the case-law of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain), insofar as it fixes the existence of an objective reason for an appointment by reference to the time limit to the appointment, without regard to other parameters, or finds that there can be no comparison made with a career public official because of the different legal rules covering them and different access routes or because career officials are permanently established but employees recruited to cover vacancies hold temporary appointments?

| 6. | If the national courts find that there is abuse arising from the use of successive appointments of temporary regulated staff to cover vacancies in the Madrid Health Service and that they are being used to cover permanent structural needs in the provision of services by permanent regulated employees, given that domestic law contains no effective measure to penalise such misuse and eliminate the consequences of the breach of EU legislation, must Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC be interpreted as requiring the national courts to adopt effective deterrent measures to ensure the effectiveness of the Framework Agreement, and therefore to penalise that misuse and eliminate the consequences of the breach of that EU legislation, disapplying the rule of domestic law that prevents it from being effective?
  If the answer should be affirmative, as held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in paragraph 41 of its judgment of 14 September 2016 in Cases C 184/15 and C 197/15: (2)

  As a measure to prevent and penalise the misuse of successive temporary contracts and to eliminate the consequence of the breach of EU law, would it be consistent with the objectives pursued by Directive 1999/70/EC to convert the temporary interim/occasional/replacement regulated relationship into a stable regulated relationship, the employee being classified as a permanent official or an official with an appointment of indefinite duration, with the same security of employment as comparable permanent regulated employees? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the national courts find that there is abuse arising from the use of successive appointments of temporary regulated staff to cover vacancies in the Madrid Health Service and that they are being used to cover permanent structural needs in the provision of services by permanent regulated employees, given that domestic law contains no effective measure to penalise such misuse and eliminate the consequences of the breach of EU legislation, must Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC be interpreted as requiring the national courts to adopt effective deterrent measures to ensure the effectiveness of the Framework Agreement, and therefore to penalise that misuse and eliminate the consequences of the breach of that EU legislation, disapplying the rule of domestic law that prevents it from being effective?

If the answer should be affirmative, as held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in paragraph 41 of its judgment of 14 September 2016 in Cases C 184/15 and C 197/15: (2)

As a measure to prevent and penalise the misuse of successive temporary contracts and to eliminate the consequence of the breach of EU law, would it be consistent with the objectives pursued by Directive 1999/70/EC to convert the temporary interim/occasional/replacement regulated relationship into a stable regulated relationship, the employee being classified as a permanent official or an official with an appointment of indefinite duration, with the same security of employment as comparable permanent regulated employees?

| 7. | If there is abuse of successive temporary contracts, can the conversion of the temporary regulated relationship into an indefinite or permanent relationship be regarded as satisfying the objectives of Directive 1999/70/EC and its Framework Agreement only if the temporary regulated employee who has been the victim of this misuse enjoys exactly the same working conditions as permanent regulated employees (as regards social security, promotion, opportunities to cover vacant posts, training, leave of absence, determination of administrative status, sick leave and other permitted absences, pension rights, termination of employment and participation in selection competitions to fill vacancies and obtain promotion) in accordance with the principles of permanence and security of employment, with all associated rights and obligations, on equal terms with permanent regulated IT specialists? |
| --- | --- |

7.

If there is abuse of successive temporary contracts, can the conversion of the temporary regulated relationship into an indefinite or permanent relationship be regarded as satisfying the objectives of Directive 1999/70/EC and its Framework Agreement only if the temporary regulated employee who has been the victim of this misuse enjoys exactly the same working conditions as permanent regulated employees (as regards social security, promotion, opportunities to cover vacant posts, training, leave of absence, determination of administrative status, sick leave and other permitted absences, pension rights, termination of employment and participation in selection competitions to fill vacancies and obtain promotion) in accordance with the principles of permanence and security of employment, with all associated rights and obligations, on equal terms with permanent regulated IT specialists?

| 8. | In the circumstances described here, is there an obligation under EU law to review final judgments/administrative acts when the four conditions laid down in Kühne & Heitz NV (C 453/00 of 13 January 2004) (3) are met: (1) Under Spanish national law, the authorities and the courts may review decisions (even if the restrictions involved make it very difficult or even impossible); (2) The contested decisions have become final as a result of a judgment of a national court issued in sole or final instance; (3) That judgment is based on an interpretation of EU law inconsistent with the case-law of the CJEU and adopted without a question being referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling; and (4) The person concerned applied to the administrative body as soon as it knew of the relevant case-law? |
| --- | --- |

8.

In the circumstances described here, is there an obligation under EU law to review final judgments/administrative acts when the four conditions laid down in Kühne & Heitz NV (C 453/00 of 13 January 2004) (3) are met: (1) Under Spanish national law, the authorities and the courts may review decisions (even if the restrictions involved make it very difficult or even impossible); (2) The contested decisions have become final as a result of a judgment of a national court issued in sole or final instance; (3) That judgment is based on an interpretation of EU law inconsistent with the case-law of the CJEU and adopted without a question being referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling; and (4) The person concerned applied to the administrative body as soon as it knew of the relevant case-law?

| 9. | May and must national courts, as European courts that must give full effect to EU law in the Member States, require and order the internal administrative authority of a Member State — within its respective area of jurisdiction — to adopt the relevant measures in order to eliminate rules of domestic law incompatible with EU law in general, and with Directive 1999/70/EC and its Framework Agreement in particular? |
| --- | --- |

9.

May and must national courts, as European courts that must give full effect to EU law in the Member States, require and order the internal administrative authority of a Member State — within its respective area of jurisdiction — to adopt the relevant measures in order to eliminate rules of domestic law incompatible with EU law in general, and with Directive 1999/70/EC and its Framework Agreement in particular?

---

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

(2)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 September 2016, Martínez Andrés and Castrejana López (C-184/15 and C-197/15, EU:C:2016:680).

(3)  Judgment of 13 January 2004, Kühne & Heitz NV (C-453/00, EU:C:2004:17).

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Asociación Española de la Industria Eléctrica (UNESA) v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-105/18)

(2018/C 161/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación Española de la Industria Eléctrica (UNESA)

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

| 2. | Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

| 3. | Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

---

(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

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

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Energía de Galicia (Engasa), S.A. v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-106/18)

(2018/C 161/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Energía de Galicia (Engasa), S.A.

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

| 2. | Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

| 3. | Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

---

(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

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

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Duerocanto, S.L. v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-107/18)

(2018/C 161/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Duerocanto, S.L.

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

| 2. | Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

| 3. | Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

---

(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

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

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Corporación Acciona Hidráulica (Acciona), S.L.U. v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-108/18)

(2018/C 161/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Corporación Acciona Hidráulica (Acciona), S.L.U.

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

| 2. | Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

| 3. | Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

---

(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

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

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Associació de Productors i Usuaris d’Energia Elèctrica v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-109/18)

(2018/C 161/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Associació de Productors i Usuaris d’Energia Elèctrica

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

| 2. | Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

| 3. | Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the failure to levy the hydraulic tax on hydroelectric production operating within river basins encompassing a single autonomous community and also on the remaining [consumptive] uses of waters, with only the electricity production use being taxed, constitutes prohibited State aid? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the failure to levy the hydraulic tax on hydroelectric production operating within river basins encompassing a single autonomous community and also on the remaining [consumptive] uses of waters, with only the electricity production use being taxed, constitutes prohibited State aid?

---

(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

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

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — José Manuel Burgos Pérez and María del Amor Guinea Bueno v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-110/18)

(2018/C 161/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: José Manuel Burgos Pérez and María del Amor Guinea Bueno

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

| 2. | Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

| 3. | Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

---

(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

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

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Endesa Generación, S.A. v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-111/18)

(2018/C 161/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Endesa Generación, S.A.

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

| 2. | Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

| 3. | Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

---

(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

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

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Asociación de Productores de Energías Renovables (APPA) v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-112/18)

(2018/C 161/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación de Productores de Energías Renovables (APPA)

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

| 2. | Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

| 3. | Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

---

(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

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

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Parc del Segre, S.A. and Others v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-113/18)

(2018/C 161/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Parc del Segre, S.A., Electra Irache, S.L., Genhidro Generación Hidroeléctrica, S.L., Hicenor, S.L., Hidroeléctrica Carrascosa, S.L., Hidroeléctrica del Carrión, S.L., Hidroeléctrica del Pisuerga, S.L., Hidroeléctrica Santa Marta, S.L., Hyanor, S.L. and Promotora del Rec dels Quatre Pobles, S.A.

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

| 2. | Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

| 3. | Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

---

(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

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

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/33

---

Appeal brought on 14 February 2018 by PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) made on 14 December 2017 in Case T-849/16, PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-117/18 P)

(2018/C 161/37)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH (represented by: M. Jeżewski, adwokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested order of the General Court of the European Union of 14 December 2017 in Case T-849/16 dismissing PGNiG Supply & Trading’s action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested order of the General Court of the European Union of 14 December 2017 in Case T-849/16 dismissing PGNiG Supply & Trading’s action as inadmissible;

| — | rule on the admissibility of PGNiG Supply & Trading’s action in Case T-849/16 concerning an application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on review of the exemption of the OPAL gas pipeline from the requirements on third-party access and tariff regulation granted under Directive 2003/55/EC, and declare that action admissible. |
| --- | --- |

—

rule on the admissibility of PGNiG Supply & Trading’s action in Case T-849/16 concerning an application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on review of the exemption of the OPAL gas pipeline from the requirements on third-party access and tariff regulation granted under Directive 2003/55/EC, and declare that action admissible.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court infringed the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU by incorrectly assuming that the European Commission’s 2016 decision does not concern the appellant either directly or individually and does not constitute a regulatory act, an assumption resulting from the misinterpretation by the General Court of the nature and effects of the new regulatory exemption of 2016, including through its infringement of Article 36(1)(a) to (e) of the Gas Directive (Directive 2009/73/EC) by failing to apply the exemption criteria for ‘new gas infrastructure’, and failing to carry out an assessment as to whether those criteria had been fulfilled in a manner that would make it sufficiently possible for a decision to be reached regarding the nature and status of the exemption introduced by the European Commission’s decision and the new regulatory exemption of 2016 by failing to apply paragraph 1 of Article 36 of the Gas Directive to the European Commission’s decision to alter the scope of the regulatory exemption of 2009. In this ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court did not assess whether the regulatory exemption was new, which led it to carry out an incorrect assessment as to the effect of the European Commission’s decision on the appellant.

The General Court misinterpreted Article 263 TFEU by finding that the appellant is not directly concerned by the European Commission’s decision. In the present ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the assessment by which the General Court found that the appellant is not directly concerned by the European Commission’s decision is incorrect. The approach taken by the General Court is not in line with the existing case-law indicating that decisions of the European Commission are of direct concern in relation to persons who are not national regulatory authorities or addressees of those decisions.

The General Court misinterpreted Article 263 TFEU by finding that the appellant is not individually concerned by the European Commission’s decision. In this ground of appeal, the appellant submits that its position on the market allows for objective individualisation within the meaning of the case-law concerning the admissibility of actions.

The General Court misinterpreted the final limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU by finding that the European Commission’s decision is not a regulatory act. In the present ground of appeal, the appellant submits that that decision is a regulatory act.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Telefónica Móviles España, S.A.U. v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC)

(Case C-119/18)

(2018/C 161/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Telefónica Móviles España, S.A.U.

Defendant: Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC)

Questions referred

| 1. | May Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (1) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may levy on telecommunications operators an annual financial contribution such as that provided for in Article 5 of Ley 8/2009, de 28 de agosto, de financiación de la Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española (Law 8/2009 of 28 August on the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española), for the purpose of contributing to the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, in view of the positive impact on the telecommunications sector resulting from the new rules governing the television and audiovisual sector and, in particular, from the increase in fixed and mobile broadband services and from the fact that Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española no longer broadcasts advertisements or paid or conditional-access content, taking the following circumstances into account:






  — | that new legislation did not provide justification, nor was it confirmed in the relevant tax year, that such a positive, direct or indirect, impact existed for those undertakings; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

May Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (1) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may levy on telecommunications operators an annual financial contribution such as that provided for in Article 5 of Ley 8/2009, de 28 de agosto, de financiación de la Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española (Law 8/2009 of 28 August on the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española), for the purpose of contributing to the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, in view of the positive impact on the telecommunications sector resulting from the new rules governing the television and audiovisual sector and, in particular, from the increase in fixed and mobile broadband services and from the fact that Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española no longer broadcasts advertisements or paid or conditional-access content, taking the following circumstances into account:

—

that new legislation did not provide justification, nor was it confirmed in the relevant tax year, that such a positive, direct or indirect, impact existed for those undertakings;

| — | that contribution is set at 0,9 % of the gross operating revenue invoiced in the relevant tax year and is not calculated on the basis of the revenue obtained from the provision of audiovisual services and advertising, the increase in that revenue or the profits generated by the activity. Furthermore, that contribution constitutes a levy provided for in Article 5 of Law 8/2009, as originally worded, and may not be justified in relation to the audiovisual service concerned, that article being the basis for the refusal, in the decision contested in the present administrative action, to grant the applicant’s requests for a refund of the payments made but not due and the rectification of the self-assessments? |
| --- | --- |

—

that contribution is set at 0,9 % of the gross operating revenue invoiced in the relevant tax year and is not calculated on the basis of the revenue obtained from the provision of audiovisual services and advertising, the increase in that revenue or the profits generated by the activity. Furthermore, that contribution constitutes a levy provided for in Article 5 of Law 8/2009, as originally worded, and may not be justified in relation to the audiovisual service concerned, that article being the basis for the refusal, in the decision contested in the present administrative action, to grant the applicant’s requests for a refund of the payments made but not due and the rectification of the self-assessments?

| 2. | Is the contribution levied on telecommunications undertakings operating in Spain in more than one Autonomous Community proportionate, as is required by Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC, in the light of the method of calculation laid down in Article 5 of Law 8/2009, to which reference has been made? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the contribution levied on telecommunications undertakings operating in Spain in more than one Autonomous Community proportionate, as is required by Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC, in the light of the method of calculation laid down in Article 5 of Law 8/2009, to which reference has been made?

| 3. | Is the contribution levied under Article 5 of Law 8/2009 of 28 August on the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española transparent, as is required by Article 6(1) and the Annex of Directive 2002/20/EC, if it is not known what specific activity Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española provides by way of universal service or public service? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the contribution levied under Article 5 of Law 8/2009 of 28 August on the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española transparent, as is required by Article 6(1) and the Annex of Directive 2002/20/EC, if it is not known what specific activity Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española provides by way of universal service or public service?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Orange España, S.A.U. v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC)

(Case C-120/18)

(2018/C 161/39)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Orange España, S.A.U.

Defendant: Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC)

Questions referred

| 1. | May Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (1) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may levy on telecommunications operators an annual financial contribution such as that provided for in Article 5 of Ley 8/2009, de 28 de agosto, de financiación de la Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española (Law 8/2009 of 28 August on the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española), for the purpose of contributing to the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, in view of the positive impact on the telecommunications sector resulting from the new rules governing the television and audiovisual sector and, in particular, from the increase in fixed and mobile broadband services and from the fact that Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española no longer broadcasts advertisements or paid or conditional-access content, taking the following circumstances into account:






  — | that new legislation did not provide justification, nor was it confirmed in the relevant tax year, that such a positive, direct or indirect, impact existed for those undertakings; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

May Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (1) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may levy on telecommunications operators an annual financial contribution such as that provided for in Article 5 of Ley 8/2009, de 28 de agosto, de financiación de la Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española (Law 8/2009 of 28 August on the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española), for the purpose of contributing to the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, in view of the positive impact on the telecommunications sector resulting from the new rules governing the television and audiovisual sector and, in particular, from the increase in fixed and mobile broadband services and from the fact that Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española no longer broadcasts advertisements or paid or conditional-access content, taking the following circumstances into account:

—

that new legislation did not provide justification, nor was it confirmed in the relevant tax year, that such a positive, direct or indirect, impact existed for those undertakings;

| — | that contribution is set at 0,9 % of the gross operating revenue invoiced in the relevant tax year and is not calculated on the basis of the revenue obtained from the provision of audiovisual services and advertising, the increase in that revenue or the profits generated by the activity. Furthermore, that contribution constitutes a levy provided for in Article 5 of Law 8/2009, as originally worded, and may not be justified in relation to the audiovisual service concerned, that article being the basis for the refusal, in the decision contested in the present administrative action, to grant the applicant’s requests for a refund of the payments made but not due and the rectification of the self-assessments? |
| --- | --- |

—

that contribution is set at 0,9 % of the gross operating revenue invoiced in the relevant tax year and is not calculated on the basis of the revenue obtained from the provision of audiovisual services and advertising, the increase in that revenue or the profits generated by the activity. Furthermore, that contribution constitutes a levy provided for in Article 5 of Law 8/2009, as originally worded, and may not be justified in relation to the audiovisual service concerned, that article being the basis for the refusal, in the decision contested in the present administrative action, to grant the applicant’s requests for a refund of the payments made but not due and the rectification of the self-assessments?

| 2. | Is the contribution levied on telecommunications undertakings operating in Spain in more than one Autonomous Community proportionate, as is required by Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC, in the light of the method of calculation laid down in Article 5 of Law 8/2009, to which reference has been made? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the contribution levied on telecommunications undertakings operating in Spain in more than one Autonomous Community proportionate, as is required by Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC, in the light of the method of calculation laid down in Article 5 of Law 8/2009, to which reference has been made?

| 3. | Is the contribution levied under Article 5 of Law 8/2009 of 28 August on the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española transparent, as is required by Article 6(1) and the Annex of Directive 2002/20/EC, if it is not known what specific activity Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española provides by way of universal service or public service? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the contribution levied under Article 5 of Law 8/2009 of 28 August on the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española transparent, as is required by Article 6(1) and the Annex of Directive 2002/20/EC, if it is not known what specific activity Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española provides by way of universal service or public service?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 14 February 2018 — Vodafone España, S.A.U. v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC)

(Case C-121/18)

(2018/C 161/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone España, S.A.U.

Defendant: Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC)

Questions referred

| 1. | May Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (1) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may levy on telecommunications operators an annual financial contribution such as that provided for in Article 5 of Ley 8/2009, de 28 de agosto, de financiación de la Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española (Law 8/2009 of 28 August on the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española), for the purpose of contributing to the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, in view of the positive impact on the telecommunications sector resulting from the new rules governing the television and audiovisual sector and, in particular, from the increase in fixed and mobile broadband services and from the fact that Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española no longer broadcasts advertisements or paid or conditional-access content, taking the following circumstances into account:






  — | that new legislation did not provide justification, nor was it confirmed in the relevant tax year, that such a positive, direct or indirect, impact existed for those undertakings; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

May Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (1) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may levy on telecommunications operators an annual financial contribution such as that provided for in Article 5 of Ley 8/2009, de 28 de agosto, de financiación de la Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española (Law 8/2009 of 28 August on the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española), for the purpose of contributing to the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, in view of the positive impact on the telecommunications sector resulting from the new rules governing the television and audiovisual sector and, in particular, from the increase in fixed and mobile broadband services and from the fact that Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española no longer broadcasts advertisements or paid or conditional-access content, taking the following circumstances into account:

—

that new legislation did not provide justification, nor was it confirmed in the relevant tax year, that such a positive, direct or indirect, impact existed for those undertakings;

| — | that contribution is set at 0,9 % of the gross operating revenue invoiced in the relevant tax year and is not calculated on the basis of the revenue obtained from the provision of audiovisual services and advertising, the increase in that revenue or the profits generated by the activity. Furthermore, that contribution constitutes a levy provided for in Article 5 of Law 8/2009, as originally worded, and may not be justified in relation to the audiovisual service concerned, that article being the basis for the refusal, in the decision contested in the present administrative action, to grant the applicant’s requests for a refund of the payments made but not due and the rectification of the self-assessments? |
| --- | --- |

—

that contribution is set at 0,9 % of the gross operating revenue invoiced in the relevant tax year and is not calculated on the basis of the revenue obtained from the provision of audiovisual services and advertising, the increase in that revenue or the profits generated by the activity. Furthermore, that contribution constitutes a levy provided for in Article 5 of Law 8/2009, as originally worded, and may not be justified in relation to the audiovisual service concerned, that article being the basis for the refusal, in the decision contested in the present administrative action, to grant the applicant’s requests for a refund of the payments made but not due and the rectification of the self-assessments?

| 2. | Is the contribution levied on telecommunications undertakings operating in Spain in more than one Autonomous Community proportionate, as is required by Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC, in the light of the method of calculation laid down in Article 5 of Law 8/2009, to which reference has been made? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the contribution levied on telecommunications undertakings operating in Spain in more than one Autonomous Community proportionate, as is required by Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC, in the light of the method of calculation laid down in Article 5 of Law 8/2009, to which reference has been made?

| 3. | Is the contribution levied under Article 5 of Law 8/2009 of 28 August on the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española transparent, as is required by Article 6(1) and the Annex of Directive 2002/20/EC, if it is not known what specific activity Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española provides by way of universal service or public service? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the contribution levied under Article 5 of Law 8/2009 of 28 August on the funding of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española transparent, as is required by Article 6(1) and the Annex of Directive 2002/20/EC, if it is not known what specific activity Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española provides by way of universal service or public service?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/37

---

Appeal brought on 15 February 2018 against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-692/15, HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH v Council of the European Union

(Case C-123/18 P)

(2018/C 161/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (represented by: M. Schlingmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2017 in Case T-692/15, HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH v Council of the European Union, supported by the European Commission; and

order the Council:

| 1. | to pay to the appellant compensation in the amount of EUR 2 516 221,50 for material and non-material damage arising from the appellant’s inclusion in the list of persons, entities and bodies in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (1) and in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010; (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

to pay to the appellant compensation in the amount of EUR 2 516 221,50 for material and non-material damage arising from the appellant’s inclusion in the list of persons, entities and bodies in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (1) and in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010; (2)

| 2. | to pay to the appellant default interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, from 17 October 2015 until the abovementioned sum has been paid in full; |
| --- | --- |

2.

to pay to the appellant default interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, from 17 October 2015 until the abovementioned sum has been paid in full;

| 3. | to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the appellant’s expenses. |
| --- | --- |

3.

to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the appellant’s expenses.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant founds its appeal on infringement of EU law by the General Court.

It asserts, in particular, that the following infringements of EU law took place:

| — | In taking into account, in the Council’s favour, circumstances and information which the Council did not submit until after the unlawful measures had been adopted, and in some cases only during the appeal proceedings, the General Court erred in law as regards the time relevant for the assessment. |
| --- | --- |

—

In taking into account, in the Council’s favour, circumstances and information which the Council did not submit until after the unlawful measures had been adopted, and in some cases only during the appeal proceedings, the General Court erred in law as regards the time relevant for the assessment.

| — | The General Court erred in law in concluding that there was circumstantial evidence that it was at least probable that the appellant ‘is owned or controlled by another entity [in this case: IRISL]’. In particular, the General Court applied an incorrect assessment criterion, incorrectly factored in information from the Council which the Council did not even possess at the time of the assessment, failed to establish the level of the (alleged) ownership or the intensity of the control and assessed the circumstantial evidence incorrectly. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law in concluding that there was circumstantial evidence that it was at least probable that the appellant ‘is owned or controlled by another entity [in this case: IRISL]’. In particular, the General Court applied an incorrect assessment criterion, incorrectly factored in information from the Council which the Council did not even possess at the time of the assessment, failed to establish the level of the (alleged) ownership or the intensity of the control and assessed the circumstantial evidence incorrectly.

| — | The General Court erred in law in assuming that Regulation No 668/2010 (3) was lawful in so far as it concerned the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law in assuming that Regulation No 668/2010 (3) was lawful in so far as it concerned the appellant.

| — | The General Court erred in law in assuming that in principle the inadequate justification for the measures adopted against the appellant could not render the EU liable and improperly failed to examine whether there had been an infringement of the right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law in assuming that in principle the inadequate justification for the measures adopted against the appellant could not render the EU liable and improperly failed to examine whether there had been an infringement of the right to effective judicial protection.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1).

(3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25).

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/38

---

Appeal brought on 15 February 2018 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-728/16, Tuerck v Commission

(Case C-132/18 P)

(2018/C 161/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, B. Mongin and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Sabine Tuerck

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 5 December 2017 in Case T-728/16, Tuerck v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 5 December 2017 in Case T-728/16, Tuerck v Commission;

| — | dismiss the action at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action at first instance;

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance;

| — | order Ms Tuerck to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ms Tuerck to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

With regard to the procedures for the transfer of pension rights accrued in a national scheme to the pension scheme of EU officials, as provided for by Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, the first ground of appeal alleges failure on the part of the General Court to have regard for the case-law of the Court of Justice in Radek Časta (judgment of 5 December 2013, C-166/12, paragraphs 24, 28 and 31), according to which the operation of converting the capital value of pension rights acquired in the national system into pensionable years of service to be credited under the EU pension scheme is governed by EU law. That operation takes into account capital appreciation between the date of application and the effective date of transfer provided for by the Staff Regulations. The General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission did not have the power to deduct capital appreciation between the date on which the transfer application was registered and the date of the actual transfer of the capital. In finding that the Commission was not competent to carry out those deductions, the General Court failed to have regard for the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, failed to recognise the competence conferred on the Commission by that article and erred in law.

The second ground of appeal alleges an error in law in holding that the deduction of capital appreciation could be carried out at a rate different to that provided for by the Staff Regulations and only on the basis of transferable capital. The deduction of capital appreciation must, however, be carried out in accordance with the Staff Regulations, which require maintenance of the actuarial balance and provide for the application of a rate of 3,1 % in order to achieve that. In addition, with reference to the ‘transferable’ amount, while Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations states that the transformation of the amounts representing the pension rights of the person concerned into pensionable years of service is to be carried out on the basis of the actual transfer, the General Court infringed that provision and failed to comply with its own appeal judgment of 13 October 2015 in Commission v Verile and Gjergji (T-104/14 P).

The third ground of appeal alleges an error in law in giving precedence to the general implementing provisions adopted by the Commission for implementing the Staff Regulations over the latter themselves, which are hierarchically superior to the former, and infringement of the obligation to state reasons. By the first part of the third ground of appeal, the Commission claims that the General Court interpreted the general implementing provisions in a manner that is contrary to the wording of the statutory provision that those GIPs are supposed to implement and contravened the principle that the Staff Regulations, as interpreted by the Court’s judgment in Radek Časta, do not allow amounts that do not actually represent pension rights to be converted into pensionable years of service. By the second part of the third ground of appeal, the Commission claims that the General Court infringed the obligation to state reasons by finding, on the basis of contradictory reasoning, that the national pension fund had shown capital appreciation between the date of application and that of the actual transfer.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the obligation to state reasons on the part of the General Court in identifying unjust enrichment that does not exist. First, the General Court takes the view that there would be unjust enrichment if only one part of the transferred capital were converted into pensionable years, although the transfer is assessed at the date of the application to transfer and then follows the ‘notional’ fund system based on a capitalisation system. By the second part of the fourth ground of appeal, the Commission alleges infringement of the obligation to state reasons: the General Court found unjust enrichment without explaining how that conclusion could be justified in the light of the Commission’s argument that the amount exceeding the application of the 3,1 % rate had been reimbursed to the official concerned.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/39

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Skype Communications Sàrl v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

(Case C-142/18)

(2018/C 161/43)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skype Communications Sàrl

Defendant: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the definition of an electronic communications service laid down in Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, (1) as amended, be understood to mean that a voice-over IP service, made available via software, terminated on a public switched telephone network, to a fixed or mobile number covered by an (E.164) national numbering plan must be regarded as an electronic communications service, notwithstanding the fact that the internet service by means of which a user accesses that voice-over IP service already itself constitutes an electronic communications service, but where the provider of the software makes available that service for remuneration and enters into agreements with telecommunications service providers duly authorised to send and terminate calls to the public switched telephone network which allow the termination of calls to a fixed or mobile number covered by a national numbering plan? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the definition of an electronic communications service laid down in Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, (1) as amended, be understood to mean that a voice-over IP service, made available via software, terminated on a public switched telephone network, to a fixed or mobile number covered by an (E.164) national numbering plan must be regarded as an electronic communications service, notwithstanding the fact that the internet service by means of which a user accesses that voice-over IP service already itself constitutes an electronic communications service, but where the provider of the software makes available that service for remuneration and enters into agreements with telecommunications service providers duly authorised to send and terminate calls to the public switched telephone network which allow the termination of calls to a fixed or mobile number covered by a national numbering plan?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is yes, does the answer remain the same if account is taken of the fact that the software functionality which makes it possible to make voice calls is merely a feature of the software, which software can be used without that feature? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is yes, does the answer remain the same if account is taken of the fact that the software functionality which makes it possible to make voice calls is merely a feature of the software, which software can be used without that feature?

| 3. | If the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is yes, does the answer to Question 1 remain the same if account is taken of the fact that the service provider provides in its general terms that it does not accept any responsibility to the end-user for the conveyance of signals? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is yes, does the answer to Question 1 remain the same if account is taken of the fact that the service provider provides in its general terms that it does not accept any responsibility to the end-user for the conveyance of signals?

| 4. | If the answer to Questions 1, 2 and 3 is yes, does the answer to Question 1 remain the same if account is taken of the fact that the service provided also satisfies the definition of ‘information society service’? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to Questions 1, 2 and 3 is yes, does the answer to Question 1 remain the same if account is taken of the fact that the service provided also satisfies the definition of ‘information society service’?

---

(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).

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/40

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Regards Photographiques SARL v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Case C-145/18)

(2018/C 161/44)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Regards Photographiques SARL

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics (Minister for the Public Sector and Public Accounts)

Questions referred

| ‘— | Must the provisions of Articles 103 and 311 of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) and paragraph 7 of part A in Annex IX thereto, be interpreted as meaning that they require only that the photographs are taken by their photographer, printed by him or under his supervision, signed and numbered up to a maximum of 30 copies, all sizes and mounts included, in order to be able to benefit from the reduced rate of VAT? |
| --- | --- |

‘—

Must the provisions of Articles 103 and 311 of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) and paragraph 7 of part A in Annex IX thereto, be interpreted as meaning that they require only that the photographs are taken by their photographer, printed by him or under his supervision, signed and numbered up to a maximum of 30 copies, all sizes and mounts included, in order to be able to benefit from the reduced rate of VAT?

| — | If the answer to the first question is yes, are Member States nevertheless permitted to exclude from the benefit of the reduced rate of VAT photographs that are not, in addition, artistic in character? |
| --- | --- |

—

If the answer to the first question is yes, are Member States nevertheless permitted to exclude from the benefit of the reduced rate of VAT photographs that are not, in addition, artistic in character?

| — | If the answer to the first question is no, what other conditions must the photographs satisfy in order to benefit from the reduced rate of VAT? In particular, must they show an artistic character? |
| --- | --- |

—

If the answer to the first question is no, what other conditions must the photographs satisfy in order to benefit from the reduced rate of VAT? In particular, must they show an artistic character?

| — | Must those conditions be interpreted uniformly within the European Union, or do they refer to the law or each Member state, in particular in the field of intellectual property?’ |
| --- | --- |

—

Must those conditions be interpreted uniformly within the European Union, or do they refer to the law or each Member state, in particular in the field of intellectual property?’

---

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

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/41

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 26 February 2018 — Agostinho da Silva Martins v Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA

(Case C-149/18)

(2018/C 161/45)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agostinho da Silva Martins

Respondent: Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA

Questions referred

| 1. | Must it be understood that the national legislation in force in Portugal prevails as an overriding, mandatory rule within the meaning of Article 16 of the Rome II Regulation? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must it be understood that the national legislation in force in Portugal prevails as an overriding, mandatory rule within the meaning of Article 16 of the Rome II Regulation? (1)

| 2. | Does that rule constitute a provision of Community law laying down a conflict-of-laws rule within the meaning of Article 27 of the Rome II Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does that rule constitute a provision of Community law laying down a conflict-of-laws rule within the meaning of Article 27 of the Rome II Regulation?

| 3. | In the light of Article 28 of Directive 2009/103/EC, (2) must it be concluded that the limitation period set out in Article 498(3) of the Portuguese Civil Code is applicable where a Portuguese citizen suffers a traffic accident in Spain? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the light of Article 28 of Directive 2009/103/EC, (2) must it be concluded that the limitation period set out in Article 498(3) of the Portuguese Civil Code is applicable where a Portuguese citizen suffers a traffic accident in Spain?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40).

(2)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11).

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/41

---

Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-712/15, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank

(Case C-152/18 P)

(2018/C 161/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (represented by: H. Savoie, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of 13 December 2017 (T-712/15) by which the General Court dismissed Crédit mutuel Arkéa’s application seeking annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 5 October 2015 (ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/28) setting the prudential requirements applicable to Groupe Crédit mutuel. |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of 13 December 2017 (T-712/15) by which the General Court dismissed Crédit mutuel Arkéa’s application seeking annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 5 October 2015 (ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/28) setting the prudential requirements applicable to Groupe Crédit mutuel.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds, alleging that:

| — | the General Court erred in law when it held that Article 2(21)(c) of the SSM Framework Regulation allowed the ECB to exercise prudential supervision on a consolidated basis in respect of institutions affiliated to a central body despite the fact that that body does not have credit institution status; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court erred in law when it held that Article 2(21)(c) of the SSM Framework Regulation allowed the ECB to exercise prudential supervision on a consolidated basis in respect of institutions affiliated to a central body despite the fact that that body does not have credit institution status;

| — | the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts when it held that Crédit mutuel is a supervised group since it meets the criteria set out in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 575/2013. (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts when it held that Crédit mutuel is a supervised group since it meets the criteria set out in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 575/2013. (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/42

---

Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-52/16, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank

(Case C-153/18 P)

(2018/C 161/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (represented by: H. Savoie, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of 13 December 2017 (T-52/16) by which the General Court dismissed Crédit mutuel Arkéa’s application seeking annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 4 December 2015 (ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/40) setting the prudential requirements applicable to Groupe Crédit mutual. |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of 13 December 2017 (T-52/16) by which the General Court dismissed Crédit mutuel Arkéa’s application seeking annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 4 December 2015 (ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/40) setting the prudential requirements applicable to Groupe Crédit mutual.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds, alleging that:

| — | the General Court erred in law when it held that Article 2(21)(c) of the SSM Framework Regulation allowed the ECB to exercise prudential supervision on a consolidated basis in respect of institutions affiliated to a central body despite the fact that that body does not have credit institution status; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court erred in law when it held that Article 2(21)(c) of the SSM Framework Regulation allowed the ECB to exercise prudential supervision on a consolidated basis in respect of institutions affiliated to a central body despite the fact that that body does not have credit institution status;

| — | the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts when it held that Crédit mutuel is a supervised group since it meets the criteria set out in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 575/2013. (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts when it held that Crédit mutuel is a supervised group since it meets the criteria set out in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 575/2013. (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/43

---

Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Ilmārs Rimšēvičs v Republic of Latvia

(Case C-202/18)

(2018/C 161/48)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: Ilmārs Rimšēvičs (represented by: S. Vārpiņš, I. Pazare and M. Kvēps, lawyers)

Defendant: Republic of Latvia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that he was unlawfully removed from the office of Governor of the Bank of Latvia by the decision of 19 February 2018 adopted by the Korupcijas novēršanas un apkarošanas birojs (Office for the prevention and fight against corruption), in the name of the Republic of Latvia, on the implementation of security measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that he was unlawfully removed from the office of Governor of the Bank of Latvia by the decision of 19 February 2018 adopted by the Korupcijas novēršanas un apkarošanas birojs (Office for the prevention and fight against corruption), in the name of the Republic of Latvia, on the implementation of security measures;

| — | declare unlawful the security measure prohibiting the exercise of certain professional activities — on the basis of which the applicant was prohibited from performing the functions of Governor of the Bank of Latvia and from exercising the rights associated with that office — which was imposed on the applicant pursuant to the decision of 19 February 2018 adopted by the Office for the prevention and fight against corruption, in the name of the Republic of Latvia, on the implementation of security measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare unlawful the security measure prohibiting the exercise of certain professional activities — on the basis of which the applicant was prohibited from performing the functions of Governor of the Bank of Latvia and from exercising the rights associated with that office — which was imposed on the applicant pursuant to the decision of 19 February 2018 adopted by the Office for the prevention and fight against corruption, in the name of the Republic of Latvia, on the implementation of security measures;

| — | declare unlawful the restrictions on performing the functions of a member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank and exercising the rights associated with that office, which were imposed on the applicant pursuant to the decision of 19 February 2018 adopted by the Office for the prevention and fight against corruption, in the name of the Republic of Latvia, on the implementation of security measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare unlawful the restrictions on performing the functions of a member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank and exercising the rights associated with that office, which were imposed on the applicant pursuant to the decision of 19 February 2018 adopted by the Office for the prevention and fight against corruption, in the name of the Republic of Latvia, on the implementation of security measures.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The applicant challenges the unlawful decision of 19 February 2018 adopted by the investigating authority of the Latvian State (that is, the Office for the prevention and fight against corruption, which is part of the executive) on the basis of which he was removed, indefinitely, from his position as Governor of the Bank of Latvia. The decision to remove him was adopted in the name of the Latvian State. On being removed from the office of Governor of the Bank of Latvia, the applicant also lost, automatically, his position as member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The applicant challenges the unlawful decision of 19 February 2018 adopted by the investigating authority of the Latvian State (that is, the Office for the prevention and fight against corruption, which is part of the executive) on the basis of which he was removed, indefinitely, from his position as Governor of the Bank of Latvia. The decision to remove him was adopted in the name of the Latvian State. On being removed from the office of Governor of the Bank of Latvia, the applicant also lost, automatically, his position as member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.

| 2. | In removing the applicant from office, the following infringements at least were committed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In removing the applicant from office, the following infringements at least were committed.

| 3. | In the first place, removing the applicant from his posts as Governor of the Bank of Latvia and member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank constituted a breach of Article 14.2 of Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, given that, at the time of his removal, none of the conditions specified in that provision for the removal of a governor of a national central bank were satisfied (namely, that the governor no longer fulfil the conditions required for the performance of his duties or have been guilty of serious misconduct). |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the first place, removing the applicant from his posts as Governor of the Bank of Latvia and member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank constituted a breach of Article 14.2 of Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, given that, at the time of his removal, none of the conditions specified in that provision for the removal of a governor of a national central bank were satisfied (namely, that the governor no longer fulfil the conditions required for the performance of his duties or have been guilty of serious misconduct).

| 4. | In the second place, removing the applicant from his post as Governor of the Bank of Latvia also breached Article 22 of the likums ‘Par Latvijas Banku’ (Law on the Bank of Latvia), the national measure implementing the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. At the time the decision at issue was adopted, none of the conditions set out in that article for the removal of the Governor of the Bank of Latvia were satisfied (first, voluntary resignation, secondly, the condition laid down in Article 14.2 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank relating to serious misconduct, in which case the Parliament may decide to remove the Governor of the Bank of Latvia from office once the conviction has become final, or, thirdly, the other conditions specified in Article 14.2 of that statute). In addition, although in accordance with the Law on the Bank of Latvia only the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia may lawfully remove the Governor of the Bank of Latvia from office, the applicant was not removed by that Parliament, but by the investigating authority of the Latvian State, which is part of the executive. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the second place, removing the applicant from his post as Governor of the Bank of Latvia also breached Article 22 of the likums ‘Par Latvijas Banku’ (Law on the Bank of Latvia), the national measure implementing the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. At the time the decision at issue was adopted, none of the conditions set out in that article for the removal of the Governor of the Bank of Latvia were satisfied (first, voluntary resignation, secondly, the condition laid down in Article 14.2 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank relating to serious misconduct, in which case the Parliament may decide to remove the Governor of the Bank of Latvia from office once the conviction has become final, or, thirdly, the other conditions specified in Article 14.2 of that statute). In addition, although in accordance with the Law on the Bank of Latvia only the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia may lawfully remove the Governor of the Bank of Latvia from office, the applicant was not removed by that Parliament, but by the investigating authority of the Latvian State, which is part of the executive.

| 5. | In the third place, removing the applicant from his post as Governor of the Bank of Latvia was based on a misinterpretation of Union law by the Office for the prevention and fight against corruption in so far as it stated that the applicant did not perform his functions on the Governing Council of the European Central Bank independently and in the interest of the European Central Bank, but rather performed those functions as Governor of the Bank of Latvia and acted in the interest of the Bank of Latvia. However, Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the European Central Bank is an institution of the European Union.
  In the exercise of their functions, officials of EU institutions may exercise only the powers provided for in Union legislation and may act only in the interest of those institutions. It is not for national legislation to define the functions of officials of EU institutions and, accordingly, when performing the functions of an official of an EU institution, it is not possible to exercise powers conferred by national legal acts.
  Under Article 130 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which guarantees the independence of the European Central Bank, the Governor of the Bank of Latvia is precluded, in exercising his functions as a member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank, from acting as a representative of the Bank of Latvia and acting (strictly) in the interest of the Bank of Latvia or the Republic of Latvia. |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the third place, removing the applicant from his post as Governor of the Bank of Latvia was based on a misinterpretation of Union law by the Office for the prevention and fight against corruption in so far as it stated that the applicant did not perform his functions on the Governing Council of the European Central Bank independently and in the interest of the European Central Bank, but rather performed those functions as Governor of the Bank of Latvia and acted in the interest of the Bank of Latvia. However, Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the European Central Bank is an institution of the European Union.

In the exercise of their functions, officials of EU institutions may exercise only the powers provided for in Union legislation and may act only in the interest of those institutions. It is not for national legislation to define the functions of officials of EU institutions and, accordingly, when performing the functions of an official of an EU institution, it is not possible to exercise powers conferred by national legal acts.

Under Article 130 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which guarantees the independence of the European Central Bank, the Governor of the Bank of Latvia is precluded, in exercising his functions as a member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank, from acting as a representative of the Bank of Latvia and acting (strictly) in the interest of the Bank of Latvia or the Republic of Latvia.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/44

---

Action brought on 3 April 2018 — European Central Bank v Republic of Latvia

(Case C-238/18)

(2018/C 161/49)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Zilioli, C. Kroppenstedt and K. Kaiser, acting as Agents, and D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, lawyer)

Defendant: Republic of Latvia

Form of order sought

The European Central Bank claims that the Court should:

| — | request the Republic of Latvia, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 62 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, to provide all relevant information pertaining to the ongoing investigation by the Korupcijas novēršanas an apkarošanas birojs (Office for the prevention and fight against corruption) of the Governor of the Bank of Latvia; |
| --- | --- |

—

request the Republic of Latvia, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 62 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, to provide all relevant information pertaining to the ongoing investigation by the Korupcijas novēršanas an apkarošanas birojs (Office for the prevention and fight against corruption) of the Governor of the Bank of Latvia;

| — | declare, pursuant to Article 14.2 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, that the Republic of Latvia has infringed the second paragraph of that provision:






  — | by removing from office the Governor of the Bank of Latvia before the handing down of a conviction from an independent court that examined the merits of the case and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare, pursuant to Article 14.2 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, that the Republic of Latvia has infringed the second paragraph of that provision:

—

by removing from office the Governor of the Bank of Latvia before the handing down of a conviction from an independent court that examined the merits of the case and

| — | without, if so confirmed by the evidence presented by the Republic of Latvia, exceptional circumstances justifying that removal; |
| --- | --- |

—

without, if so confirmed by the evidence presented by the Republic of Latvia, exceptional circumstances justifying that removal;

| — | order the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The ECB claims that the Republic of Latvia has infringed the second paragraph of Article 14.2 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank in removing from office the Governor of the Bank of Latvia by way of a provisional security measure, without the handing down of a conviction from an independent court that examined the merits of the case.

---

General Court

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — De Capitani v Parliament

(Case T-540/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning an ongoing legislative procedure - Trilogues - Four-column tables relating to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Europol and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JAI and 2005/681/JAI - Partial refusal of access - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - First subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - No general presumption that access should be refused to four-column tables drawn up for the purposes of trilogues))

(2018/C 161/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Emilio De Capitani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, J. Wolfhagen and E. Raedts, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: N. Görlitz, A. Troupiotis and C. Burgos, and subsequently by N. Görlitz, C. Burgos and I. Anagnostopoulou, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti, B. Driessen and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents) and European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision A(2015) 4931 of the European Parliament of 8 July 2015, refusing to grant the applicant full access to the documents LIBE-2013-0091-02 and LIBE-2013-0091-03.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision A(2015) 4931 of the European Parliament of 8 July 2015 in so far as it refuses to grant Mr Emilio De Capitani full access to documents LIBE-2013-0091-02 and LIBE-2013-0091-03; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision A(2015) 4931 of the European Parliament of 8 July 2015 in so far as it refuses to grant Mr Emilio De Capitani full access to documents LIBE-2013-0091-02 and LIBE-2013-0091-03;

| 2. | Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr De Capitani; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr De Capitani;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Stavytskyi v Council

(Case T-242/16) (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 covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Applicant’s name maintained on the list - Obligation to state reasons - Objection of illegality - Proportionality - Legal basis - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 161/51)

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 initially by: E. Paasivirta and S. Bartelt, and subsequently by: E. Paasivirta and L. Baumgart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application brought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, 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. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

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

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Šroubárna Ždánice v Council

(Case T-442/16) (1)

((Application for repayment of anti-dumping duties - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China or consigned from Malaysia - Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 - Jurisdiction of the national court - Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court))

(2018/C 161/52)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Šroubárna Ždánice a.s. (Kyjov, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Osladil, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents, and N. Tuominen, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for repayment of the anti-dumping duties, with interest, that the applicant claims to have wrongfully paid to the customs authorities of the Czech Republic following the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation No 91/2007 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 6), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 amending Regulation No 91/2009 (OJ 2012 L 275, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action on the ground of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine it; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action on the ground of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine it;

| 2. | Orders Šroubárna Ždánice a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Šroubárna Ždánice a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — HJ v EMA

(Case T-579/16) (1)

((Civil service - Temporary staff - Refusal to renew a fixed-term contract - First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS - Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as an indefinite contract - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Duty to state reasons - Right to be heard - Appraisal report - Duty to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 161/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: F. Cooney and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the applicants appraisal report relating to the period from 16 February 2014 to 31 December 2014, of the EMA’s decision dated 1 April 2015 not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and of the two decisions dated 26 October 2015 rejecting the complaints brought by the applicant against those measures and, secondly, an application for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders HJ to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders HJ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-8/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Argyraki v Commission

(Case T-734/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Calculation of years - Taking into account periods of service completed as a member of the auxiliary staff - Conditions - Legal basis))

(2018/C 161/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassilia Argyraki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, G. Berscheid, G. Gattinara and A.-C. Simon, then G. Berscheid, G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) dated 29 January 2016 by which the latter refused the applicant’s request to have the periods of service she supplied as a member of the auxiliary staff validated as periods completed as a member of the temporary staff in the calculation of her pension rights.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) dated 29 January 2016 by which the latter refused Ms Vassilia Argyraki’s request to have the periods of service she supplied as a member of the auxiliary staff validated as periods completed as a member of the temporary staff in the calculation of her pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) dated 29 January 2016 by which the latter refused Ms Vassilia Argyraki’s request to have the periods of service she supplied as a member of the auxiliary staff validated as periods completed as a member of the temporary staff in the calculation of her pension rights;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Safe Skies v EUIPO — Travel Sentry (TSA LOCK)

(Case T-60/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark TSA LOCK - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 161/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Safe Skies LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. Schwepler, 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: Travel Sentry, Inc. (Windermere, Florida, United States) (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero and V. Torelli, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2016 (Case R 233/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Safe Skies and Travel Sentry.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Safe Skies LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Safe Skies LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Webgarden v EUIPO (Dating Bracelet)

(Case T-272/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Dating Bracelet - Absolute ground 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) - Previous EUIPO practice - Equal treatment - Legal certainty))

(2018/C 161/56)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Webgarden Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: G. Jambrik, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2017 (Case R 658/2016-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Dating Bracelet as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Webgarden Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Webgarden Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/51

---

Order of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Aurora Group Danmark v EUIPO — Retail Distribution (PANZER)

(Case T-246/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 161/57)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Aurora Group Danmark A/S (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: L. Elmgaard Sørensen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, D. Gaja and, subsequently, T. Frydendahl and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Retail Distribution ApS (Hinnerup, Denmark) (represented by: E.A. Skovbo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 (Case R 447/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Retail Distribution and Aurora Group Danmark.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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

| 2. | Aurora Group Danmark A/S and Retail Distribution ApS shall bear their own respective costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Aurora Group Danmark A/S and Retail Distribution ApS shall bear their own respective costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/51

---

Order of the General Court of 13 March 2018 — Disney Enterprises v EUIPO — Di Molfetta (DiSNEY FROZEN)

(Case T-567/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 161/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Disney Enterprises, Inc. (Burbank, California, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Fabio Di Molfetta (Bisceglie, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2017 (Case R 2342/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Fabio Di Molfetta and Disney Enterprises, Inc.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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

| 2. | Disney Enterprises, Inc., shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Disney Enterprises, Inc., shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/52

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Comune di Milano v Council

(Case T-46/18) (1)

((Declining of jurisdiction))

(2018/C 161/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Comune di Milano (Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone and M. Condinanzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti, M. Bauer and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council decision of 20 November 2017 adopted in the margins of its 3579th meeting in its General Affairs formation, regarding the selection of the new seat of the European Medicines Agency (‘EMA’) in so far as it established that Amsterdam would be the new seat of the EMA.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The General Court declines jurisdiction in Case T 46/18 in order to enable the Court of Justice to rule on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court declines jurisdiction in Case T 46/18 in order to enable the Court of Justice to rule on the action.

| 2. | The decision on the applications to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands and by the Regione Lombardia (Lombardia Region, Italy) is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The decision on the applications to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands and by the Regione Lombardia (Lombardia Region, Italy) is reserved.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/53

---

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — VI v Commission

(Case T-109/18)

(2018/C 161/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

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

| — | annul, first, the decision of 14 November 2017 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged on 13 July 2017, including the rejection of the applicant’s request for 50 000 euros in compensation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, first, the decision of 14 November 2017 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged on 13 July 2017, including the rejection of the applicant’s request for 50 000 euros in compensation;

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

—

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

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

—

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

| — | annul, fourth, the open notice of competition EPSO/AD/323/16, published on 26 May 2016, and in its entirety the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, fourth, the open notice of competition EPSO/AD/323/16, published on 26 May 2016, and in its entirety the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition;

| — | award 50 000 euros in compensation to the applicant for the damaged incurred because of the above unlawful contested decisions; and |
| --- | --- |

—

award 50 000 euros in compensation to the applicant for the damaged incurred because of the above unlawful contested decisions; and

| — | 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 manifest error of assessment by EPSO/Selection Board concerning the evaluation of the working experience of the applicant, including the breach of Annex III to the Notice of Competition at issue detailing the required working experience. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by EPSO/Selection Board concerning the evaluation of the working experience of the applicant, including the breach of Annex III to the Notice of Competition at issue detailing the required working experience.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s right to be heard, and, further, breach of the duty to state reasons and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

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

3.

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

---

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

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/54

---

Action brought on 26 February 2018 — Tomasz Kawałko Trofeum v EUIPO — Ferrero (KINDERPRAMS)

(Case T-115/18)

(2018/C 161/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Tomasz Kawałko Trofeum (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: P. Moksa, legal counsel)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘KINDERPRAMS’ — Application for registration No 12 916 961

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2017 in Case R 1112/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | amend the contested decision by registering KINDERPRAMS as an EU trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision by registering KINDERPRAMS as an EU trade mark;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/54

---

Action brought on 01 March 2018 — HMV (Brands) v EUIPO — Our Price Records (OUR PRICE)

(Case T-129/18)

(2018/C 161/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: HMV (Brands) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Hicks, and N. Zweck, Barristers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Our Price Records Ltd (London)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘OUR PRICE’ — Application for registration No 13 636 998

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 838/2017-2

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; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

| — | order Our Price Records Limited to pay the costs (if it intervenes in this case);
  AND EITHER |
| --- | --- |

—

order Our Price Records Limited to pay the costs (if it intervenes in this case);

AND EITHER

| — | allow HMV’s opposition in its entirety
  OR |
| --- | --- |

—

allow HMV’s opposition in its entirety

OR

| — | remit the case for consideration by EUIPO in light of the annulment of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case for consideration by EUIPO in light of the annulment of the contested decision.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/55

---

Action brought on 28 February 2018 — LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs v EUIPO (LITECRAFT)

(Case T-140/18)

(2018/C 161/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH (Ibbenbüren, Germany) (represented by: R. Plegge, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘LITECRAFT’ — Application for registration No 15 282 635

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2018 in Case R 699/2017-2

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. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/56

---

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Société générale v ECB

(Case T-143/18)

(2018/C 161/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société générale (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 4 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/174 of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of its Annex A, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/174 of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of its Annex A, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

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

—

order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging there is no legal basis for the adoption of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the ECB has no jurisdiction to impose a prudential requirement of general scope and has not conducted an individual and detailed assessment of the applicant’s situation as required by the applicable legislation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging there is no legal basis for the adoption of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the ECB has no jurisdiction to impose a prudential requirement of general scope and has not conducted an individual and detailed assessment of the applicant’s situation as required by the applicable legislation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in that the ECB wrongly interpreted the EU legislation establishing the possibility for credit institutions to use irrevocable payment commitments and, consequently, rendered those provisions ineffective. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in that the ECB wrongly interpreted the EU legislation establishing the possibility for credit institutions to use irrevocable payment commitments and, consequently, rendered those provisions ineffective.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error in the assessment of the risks allegedly posed by the irrevocable payment commitments having regard to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p 63). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error in the assessment of the risks allegedly posed by the irrevocable payment commitments having regard to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p 63).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons, in so far as the ECB is, it is claimed, subject to an enhanced obligation to state reasons and the contested decision was inadequately reasoned. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons, in so far as the ECB is, it is claimed, subject to an enhanced obligation to state reasons and the contested decision was inadequately reasoned.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/57

---

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Crédit Agricole and Others v ECB

(Case T-144/18)

(2018/C 161/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Crédit Agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and 69 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Defendants: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 9 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of its Annex A, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 9 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of its Annex A, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

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

—

order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-143/18, Societe Generale v ECB.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/57

---

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v ECB

(Case T-145/18)

(2018/C 161/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Paris, France) and 37 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 8 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 8 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

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

—

order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-143/18, Societe Generale v ECB.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/58

---

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — BPCE and Others v ECB

(Case T-146/18)

(2018/C 161/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: BPCE (Paris, France) and 36 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 4 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/338 (taken together with its annex) of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/338 (taken together with its annex) of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

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

—

order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-143/18, Societe Generale v ECB.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/58

---

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Arkéa Direct Bank and Others v ECB

(Case T-149/18)

(2018/C 161/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Arkéa Direct Bank (Puteaux, France), Caisse de Bretagne de Crédit Mutuel Agricole (Le Relecq Kerhuon, France), Crédit Mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Crédit foncier et communal d’Alsace et de Lorraine-banque (Strasbourg, France), Fédéral Finance (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Arkéa Home Loans SFH (Brest, France), Arkéa Banking Services (Paris, France), Arkéa Public Sector SCF (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Arkéa Banque Entreprises et Institutionnels (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Keytrade Bank Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 8 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 8 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

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

—

order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-143/18, Societe Generale v ECB.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/59

---

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — BNP Paribas v ECB

(Case T-150/18)

(2018/C 161/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul Article 9 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/248 of 19 December 2017 in so far as it imposes a deduction from the irrevocable payment commitments subscribed with the Single Resolution Fund, national resolution funds and national Common Equity Tier I deposit guarantee schemes, on an individual, sub-consolidated and consolidated basis, and in particular paragraphs 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3: |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul Article 9 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/248 of 19 December 2017 in so far as it imposes a deduction from the irrevocable payment commitments subscribed with the Single Resolution Fund, national resolution funds and national Common Equity Tier I deposit guarantee schemes, on an individual, sub-consolidated and consolidated basis, and in particular paragraphs 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3:

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

—

order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacks a legal basis in that the ECB made use of its supervisory powers to impose a measure of general scope that falls within the competence of the legislature and exceeded its powers under Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p 63). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacks a legal basis in that the ECB made use of its supervisory powers to impose a measure of general scope that falls within the competence of the legislature and exceeded its powers under Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p 63).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in that the ECB made an interpretation contrary to the legislative intent of the EU legislation authorising credit institutions to use irrevocable payment commitments in order to fulfil part of their obligations vis-à-vis the national resolution funds, the Single Resolution Fund and the national deposit guarantee schemes, thus rendering the relevant provisions ineffective. The ECB, it is claimed, also based its decision on a misreading of the EU and national legal transposition framework applicable to irrevocable payment commitments. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in that the ECB made an interpretation contrary to the legislative intent of the EU legislation authorising credit institutions to use irrevocable payment commitments in order to fulfil part of their obligations vis-à-vis the national resolution funds, the Single Resolution Fund and the national deposit guarantee schemes, thus rendering the relevant provisions ineffective. The ECB, it is claimed, also based its decision on a misreading of the EU and national legal transposition framework applicable to irrevocable payment commitments.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on an error of assessment and infringes the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on an error of assessment and infringes the principle of good administration.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/59

---

Action brought on 26 February 2018 — Legutko and Poręba v Parliament

(Case T-156/18)

(2018/C 161/70)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicants: Ryszard Antoni Legutko (Morawica, Poland) and Tomasz Piotr Poręba (Mielec, Poland) (represented by: M. Mataczyński, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare that the defendant has infringed Article 130 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and the provisions of Annex II to those Rules by failing to forward to the Council of the European Union a written question, submitted by Members of the European Parliament in the proceedings registered with the reference number P-003358/17; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendant has infringed Article 130 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and the provisions of Annex II to those Rules by failing to forward to the Council of the European Union a written question, submitted by Members of the European Parliament in the proceedings registered with the reference number P-003358/17;

| — | declare that the European Parliament is required to forward the written question registered with the reference number P-003358/17 to the competent institution, which is the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the European Parliament is required to forward the written question registered with the reference number P-003358/17 to the competent institution, which is the Council of the European Union;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| — | Plea alleging a failure on the part of the European Parliament consisting in a failure to forward to the competent institution, as recommended by the applicants, a written question submitted on 16 May 2017 by Ryszard Legutko and Tomasz Poręba, Members of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

—

Plea alleging a failure on the part of the European Parliament consisting in a failure to forward to the competent institution, as recommended by the applicants, a written question submitted on 16 May 2017 by Ryszard Legutko and Tomasz Poręba, Members of the European Parliament.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/60

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Amisi Kumba v Council

(Case T-163/18)

(2018/C 161/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 2 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 2 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, including breach of the obligation to state reasons justifying the measures and ensuring effective judicial protection and breach of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, including breach of the obligation to state reasons justifying the measures and ensuring effective judicial protection and breach of the right to be heard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment as regards the involvement of the applicant in acts constituting serious human rights breaches in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment as regards the involvement of the applicant in acts constituting serious human rights breaches in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to privacy, the right of property and the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to privacy, the right of property and the principle of proportionality.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repealing Common Position 2008/369/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 30), as amended by Council Decision 2016/2231/CFSP of 12 December 2016 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2016 L 336, p. 7), and 2b(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2005 L 193, p. 1) are unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repealing Common Position 2008/369/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 30), as amended by Council Decision 2016/2231/CFSP of 12 December 2016 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2016 L 336, p. 7), and 2b(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2005 L 193, p. 1) are unlawful.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/61

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kampete v Council

(Case T-164/18)

(2018/C 161/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 1 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 1 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/61

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council

(Case T-165/18)

(2018/C 161/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Delphin Kahimbi Kasagwe (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 7 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 7 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/62

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-166/18)

(2018/C 161/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 3 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 3 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/63

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kanyama v Council

(Case T-167/18)

(2018/C 161/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 4 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 4 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/63

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Numbi v Council

(Case T-168/18)

(2018/C 161/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: John Numbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 5 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 5 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/64

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kibelisa Ngambasai v Council

(Case T-169/18)

(2018/C 161/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Roger Kibelisa Ngambasai (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 6 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 6 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 6 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 6 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/64

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kande Mupompa v Council

(Case T-170/18)

(2018/C 161/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alex Kande Mupompa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 10 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 10 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/65

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Boshab v Council

(Case T-171/18)

(2018/C 161/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 8 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 8 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/65

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Akili Mundos v Council

(Case T-172/18)

(2018/C 161/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Muhindo Akili Mundos (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 13 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 13 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 13 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 13 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/66

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Ramazani Shadary v Council

(Case T-173/18)

(2018/C 161/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 15 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 15 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 15 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 15 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/67

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Mutondo v Council

(Case T-174/18)

(2018/C 161/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kalev Mutondo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 16 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 16 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 16 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 16 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/67

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Ruhorimbere v Council

(Case T-175/18)

(2018/C 161/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Éric Ruhorimbere (Mbujimayi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 14 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 14 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 14 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 14 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/68

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Mende Omalanga v Council

(Case T-176/18)

(2018/C 161/84)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Lambert Mende Omalanga (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 12 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 12 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 12 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 12 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/68

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kazembe Musonda v Council

(Case T-177/18)

(2018/C 161/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda (Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 11 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 11 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 11 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 11 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/69

---

Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VJ v EEAS

(Case T-180/18)

(2018/C 161/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VJ (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the calculation sheet forwarded to him by email of 22 June 2017 from the EEAS and, so far as necessary, the salary slip through which the payment of the education allowance for his children was/will be granted; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the calculation sheet forwarded to him by email of 22 June 2017 from the EEAS and, so far as necessary, the salary slip through which the payment of the education allowance for his children was/will be granted;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, putting forward an objection of illegality, in so far as the contested decision, the note of 15 April 2016 on which it is based and the EEAS’s Guidelines infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials and Annex X thereto. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, putting forward an objection of illegality, in so far as the contested decision, the note of 15 April 2016 on which it is based and the EEAS’s Guidelines infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials and Annex X thereto.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the individual decision at issue. There are five parts to that plea.






  — | First part, alleging infringement of the principles of diligence, of the protection of legitimate expectations, of legal certainty and of sound administration and of the applicant’s acquired rights. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the individual decision at issue. There are five parts to that plea.

—

First part, alleging infringement of the principles of diligence, of the protection of legitimate expectations, of legal certainty and of sound administration and of the applicant’s acquired rights.

| — | Second part, alleging failure by the EEAS to comply with its obligations, its poor administration, and infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the applicant’s legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second part, alleging failure by the EEAS to comply with its obligations, its poor administration, and infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the applicant’s legitimate expectations.

| — | Third part, alleging infringement of the right to found a family and the right to education. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third part, alleging infringement of the right to found a family and the right to education.

| — | Fourth part, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth part, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| — | Fifth part, alleging that in adopting the measure the EEAS failed to balance the interests involved and infringed the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth part, alleging that in adopting the measure the EEAS failed to balance the interests involved and infringed the principle of proportionality.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/70

---

Action brought on 9 March 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (TAKE CARE)

(Case T-181/18)

(2018/C 161/87)

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 (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘TAKE CARE’ — Application for registration No 16 254 898

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2018 in Case R 845/2017-5

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.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/70

---

Action brought on 14 March 2018 — Lucchini v Commission

(Case T-185/18)

(2018/C 161/88)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Lucchini SpA (Livorno, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Take account of the infringements established in the judgments of the Court of Justice annulling Commission Decision C (2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 concerning an infringement of Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, re-adoption), and accordingly annul the Commission’s rejection decision contained in the letter of 17 January 2018 and order the Commission to reimburse to the applicant the fine unlawfully imposed and paid, together with interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

Take account of the infringements established in the judgments of the Court of Justice annulling Commission Decision C (2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 concerning an infringement of Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, re-adoption), and accordingly annul the Commission’s rejection decision contained in the letter of 17 January 2018 and order the Commission to reimburse to the applicant the fine unlawfully imposed and paid, together with interest;

| — | Annul the Commission’s rejection decision contained in the letter of 9 March 2018 and order the Commission to allow the applicant to take part in procedure COMP/37.956, which will have to be reopened by the Commission in order to comply with the judgments of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s rejection decision contained in the letter of 9 March 2018 and order the Commission to allow the applicant to take part in procedure COMP/37.956, which will have to be reopened by the Commission in order to comply with the judgments of the Court of Justice;

| — | In the alternative, order compensation to be paid to the applicant in the amount of not less than EUR 10 million or another amount to be determined during the course of the proceedings or whatever amount the Court deems equitable as an adequate penalty for the established infringement of Article 41 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, order compensation to be paid to the applicant in the amount of not less than EUR 10 million or another amount to be determined during the course of the proceedings or whatever amount the Court deems equitable as an adequate penalty for the established infringement of Article 41 of the Charter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant points out that the Court of Justice has annulled Commission Decision C (2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 concerning an infringement of Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars) (1) and states that, in disregard of the wording of that annulment, the defendant has refused to reimburse the fine paid and has not invited the applicant to participate in the administrative procedure, which has been reopened in the meantime.

In support of its action, the applicant raises two pleas in law.

| 1. | Infringement of Articles 10 to 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (Text with EEA relevance), (2) in particular the infringement of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing in accordance with the law and, first and foremost, of its rights of defence.






  — | In this regard, the applicant submits that the participation of Member States in hearings is not a pure formality, as the competition authorities are part of the committee which must be consulted by the Commission before it takes any decision. Those competition authorities must always take part in plenary hearings, the crux of the proceedings in which the undertakings’ defence and the Commission’s case are heard inter partes. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of Articles 10 to 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (Text with EEA relevance), (2) in particular the infringement of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing in accordance with the law and, first and foremost, of its rights of defence.

—

In this regard, the applicant submits that the participation of Member States in hearings is not a pure formality, as the competition authorities are part of the committee which must be consulted by the Commission before it takes any decision. Those competition authorities must always take part in plenary hearings, the crux of the proceedings in which the undertakings’ defence and the Commission’s case are heard inter partes.

| 2. | Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to good administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to good administration.

---

(1)  Judgments of 21 September 2017: Feralpi v Commission, C-85/15 P (EU:C:2017:709); Joined Cases C-86/15 P, Ferriera Valsabbia v Commission, and C-87/15 P, Alfa Acciai v Commission (EU:C:2017:717); Ferriere Nord v Commission, C-88/15 P (EU:C:2017:716); and Riva Fire v Commission, C-89/15 P, (EU:C:2017:713).

(2)  OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/71

---

Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)

(Case T-191/18)

(2018/C 161/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (Altdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design No 762851-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2018 in Case R 1203/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal and declare EU design No 762851-0001 null and void; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal and declare EU design No 762851-0001 null and void;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b), of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b), of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002.

---

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/72

---

Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)

(Case T-192/18)

(2018/C 161/90)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (Altdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: International registration No DM/073118-3 designating the European Union

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2018 in Case R 1244/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal and declare the effect of the international registration of design DM/073118-3 in the European Union to be null and void; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal and declare the effect of the international registration of design DM/073118-3 in the European Union to be null and void;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b), of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b), of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002.

---