# Official Journal C 172/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 172 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6220 May 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 172

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6220 May 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2019/C 172/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |
| | General Court |
| 2019/C 172/02 | Composition of the Grand Chamber | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2019/C 172/01

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

General Court

2019/C 172/02

Composition of the Grand Chamber

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2019/C 172/03 | Case C-54/18: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the  Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Cooperativa Animazione Valdocco S.C.S. Impresa Sociale Onlus v Consorzio Intercomunale Servizi Sociali di Pinerolo, Azienda Sanitaria Locale To3 di Collegno e Pinerolo (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement – Review procedures – Directive 89/665/EEC – Articles 1 and 2c – Action brought against decisions to allow tenderers to participate in, or to exclude them from, a tendering procedure – Time limit for applying for review – 30-day time limit – National legislation excluding the possibility to plead the illegality of an admission decision in an action brought against subsequent decisions – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47 – Right to effective judicial protection) | 3 |
| 2019/C 172/04 | Case C-373/18: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Penafiel — Portugal) — Prosa — Produtos e Serviços Agrícolas v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – Directive 69/335/EEC – Articles 4 and 7 – Incorporation of a capital company – Stamp duty in force on 1 July 1984 – Subsequent abolition of that stamp duty, followed by its reintroduction) | 4 |
| 2019/C 172/05 | Case C-489/18: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the  Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Farmland Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Direct support schemes – Single payment scheme – Single area payment application – Criteria – Lawful user of agricultural land) | 5 |
| 2019/C 172/06 | Case C-689/18: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Patron — Greece) — XT v Elliniko Dimosio (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Internal taxation – Prohibition of discriminatory taxation – Luxury tax – Motor vehicles – Exemption from tax depending on the date on which the goods first entered into service in the taxing Member State – No account taken of the date on which the goods first entered into service in another Member State) | 5 |
| 2019/C 172/07 | Case C-8/19 PPU: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the  Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against RH (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Article 4 – Public references to guilt – Pre-trial detention decision – Remedies – Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of that decision – Observance of the presumption of innocence – Article 267 TFEU – Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the  European Union – Right to have a case heard within a reasonable time. – National legislation restricting the powers of the national courts to make a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or obliging them to adjudicate without waiting for the answer to that request – Disciplinary sanctions for failure to comply with that legislation) | 6 |
| 2019/C 172/08 | Case C-755/18 P: Appeal brought on 30/11/2018 by Harry Shindler and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 26 November 2018 in Case T-458/17 Shindler and  Others v Council | 7 |
| 2019/C 172/09 | Case C-88/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Zărnești (Romania) lodged on 7 February 2019 —  Asociația Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor v TM, UN and Asociația DMPA | 7 |
| 2019/C 172/10 | Case C-96/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich (Austria) lodged on 8 February 2019 — VO v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln | 8 |
| 2019/C 172/11 | Case C-101/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland | 9 |
| 2019/C 172/12 | Case C-102/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland | 10 |
| 2019/C 172/13 | Case C-108/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București, Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți | 10 |
| 2019/C 172/14 | Case C-112/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 12 February 2019 — Marvin M. v Kreis Heinsberg | 11 |
| 2019/C 172/15 | Case C-118/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2019 — ZS v PVA Landesstelle Salzburg | 12 |
| 2019/C 172/16 | Case C-134/19 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2019 by Bank Refah Kargaran against the judgment delivered on 10 December 2018 in Case T-552/15, Bank Refah Kargaran v Council | 12 |
| 2019/C 172/17 | Case C-135/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 20 February 2019 —  Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v CW | 14 |
| 2019/C 172/18 | Case C-157/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Ehab Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-409/16 Makhlouf v Council | 15 |
| 2019/C 172/19 | Case C-158/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Razan Othman against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-416/16 Othman v Council | 16 |
| 2019/C 172/20 | Case C-159/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-411/16 Syriatel Mobile  Telecom v Council | 17 |
| 2019/C 172/21 | Case C-182/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 26 February 2019 — Pfizer Consumer Healthcare Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and  Customs | 18 |
| 2019/C 172/22 | Case C-208/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz (Austria) lodged on 4 March 2019 — NK v Ms and AS | 19 |
| 2019/C 172/23 | Case C-217/19: Action brought on 8 March 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Finland | 20 |
| 2019/C 172/24 | Case C-231/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 15 March 2019 — Blackrock Investment Management (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her  Majesty's Revenue and Customs | 21 |
| 2019/C 172/25 | Case C-235/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 18 March 2019 — United Biscuits (Pensions Trustees) Limited, United Biscuits Pension Investments Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs | 22 |
| 2019/C 172/26 | Case C-239/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 20 March 2019 — Eli Lilly and Company v Genentech Inc. | 22 |
| 2019/C 172/27 | Case C-510/17: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 24 January 2019 (request for a preliminary  ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava — Slovakia) — ML | 23 |
| 2019/C 172/28 | Case C-564/17: Order of the President of the Court of 4 February 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium,  supported by: Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Estonia, Ireland, Kingdom of Spain, French  Republic, Italian Republic, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Hungary | 23 |
| 2019/C 172/29 | Case C-569/17: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 13 February 2019 (request for a preliminary  ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Japan Tobacco International SA, Japan Tobacco International France SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé | 24 |
| 2019/C 172/30 | Case C-657/17: Order of the President of the Court of 25 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the  Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Hussein Mohamad Hussein, other party: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl | 24 |
| 2019/C 172/31 | Case C-277/18: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo de Círculo de Lisboa — Portugal) — Henkel Ibérica Portugal, Unipessoal Lda v Comissão de Segurança de Serviços e Bens de Consumo | 24 |
| 2019/C 172/32 | Case C-368/18: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 30 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — Frank Casteels v Ryanair DAC,  formerly Ryanair Ltd | 25 |
| 2019/C 172/33 | Case C-399/18: Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Vereniging Gasopslag Nederland, TAQA Onshore BV, TAQA Piek Gas BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt, other party: Gas Transport Services BV | 25 |
| 2019/C 172/34 | Case C-498/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — ZW v Deutsche Lufthansa AG | 25 |
| 2019/C 172/35 | Case C-614/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2019 — European Commission v Slovak Republic | 26 |
| 2019/C 172/36 | Case C-660/18: Order of the President of the Court of 8 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sundair GmbH v WV, XU, YT, ZS | 26 |
| 2019/C 172/37 | Case C-701/18: Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Geld-für-Flug GmbH v Ryanair DAC | 26 |
| 2019/C 172/38 | Case C-750/18: Order of the President of the Court of 8 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — A, B v C | 27 |
| | General Court |
| 2019/C 172/39 | Cases T-251/17 and T-252/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.) (EU trade mark – Applications for the EU figurative marks Simply. Connected. – Relative ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Scope of the examination which has to be carried out by the Board of Appeal – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 71 of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 28 |
| 2019/C 172/40 | Case T-480/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Greece v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from financing – Expenditure incurred by Greece – One-off and flat-rate financial corrections – Cross compliance – Monitoring of statutory management requirements – Risk analysis – Assessment of the financial loss – Obligation to state reasons – Proportionality) | 29 |
| 2019/C 172/41 | Case T-492/17: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2019 — Fleig v EEAS (Civil Service – Contract staff – Contract of indefinite duration – Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS – Termination with notice – Grounds for termination – Breakdown in the relationship of trust – Interests of the service – Manifest error of assessment – Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff – Principle of sound administration – Articles 30 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Procedural issue – Publication on the Internet of  documents included in the file relating to the proceedings before the General Court – Article 17 of the Staff  Regulations) | 29 |
| 2019/C 172/42 | Case T-562/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO — Albea Services (ALBÉA) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark ALBÉA – Earlier international registration designating the European Union – Word mark Balea – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of  Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 30 |
| 2019/C 172/43 | Case T-611/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2019 — All Star v EUIPO — Carrefour Hypermarchés (Shape of a shoe sole) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Three-dimensional EU trade mark – Shape of a shoe sole – Well known facts – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of defence – Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Rejection of the request to hold a hearing before the Board of Appeal – Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 96(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 31 |
| 2019/C 172/44 | Case T-779/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — United Wineries v EUIPO — Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín (VIÑA ALARDE) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark VIÑA ALARDE – Earlier national word mark ALARDE – Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Identity of the goods – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 32 |
| 2019/C 172/45 | Case T-804/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two facing arches) (EU trade mark – Application for an EU figurative mark representing two facing arches – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 33 |
| 2019/C 172/46 | Case T-259/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Zakłady Chemiczne Siarkopol Tarnobrzeg v EUIPO — EuroChem Agro (Unifoska) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark Unifoska – Earlier EU word mark NITROFOSKA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 33 |
| 2019/C 172/47 | Case T-186/18: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2019 — Abaco Energy and Others v Commission (Actions for annulment – State aid – Aid scheme for renewable energies – Preliminary examination procedure – Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market – Action brought by recipients – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility) | 34 |
| 2019/C 172/48 | Case T-190/18: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2019 — Solwindet las Lomas v Commission (Actions for annulment – State aid – Aid scheme for renewable energies – Preliminary examination procedure – Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market – Action brought by a recipient – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility) | 35 |
| 2019/C 172/49 | Case T-631/18: Order of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Herholz v EUIPO (#) (EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark # – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Claim for alteration – Manifest inadmissibility) | 36 |
| 2019/C 172/50 | Case T-157/19: Action brought on 8 March 2019 –Șanli v Council | 36 |
| 2019/C 172/51 | Case T-161/19: Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council | 37 |
| 2019/C 172/52 | Case T-162/19: Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Parliament and Council | 38 |
| 2019/C 172/53 | Case T-171/19: Action brought on 20 March 2019 — Hebberecht v EEAS | 39 |
| 2019/C 172/54 | Case T-173/19: Action brought on 22 March 2019 — AV and AW v Parliament | 40 |
| 2019/C 172/55 | Case T-176/19: Action brought on 25 March 2019 — 3V Sigma/ECHA | 41 |
| 2019/C 172/56 | Case T-182/19: Action brought on 28 March 2019 — Puma v EUIPO (SOFTFOAM) | 42 |
| 2019/C 172/57 | Case T-184/19: Action brought on 27 March 2019 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS) | 43 |
| 2019/C 172/58 | Case T-185/19: Action brought on 28 March 2019 — Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission | 44 |
| 2019/C 172/59 | Case T-187/19: Action brought on 29 March 2019 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO (colour mark purple) | 45 |
| 2019/C 172/60 | Case T-188/19: Action brought on 1 April 2019 — United Kingdom v Commission | 46 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice of the European Union

2019/C 172/03

Case C-54/18: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the  Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Cooperativa Animazione Valdocco S.C.S. Impresa Sociale Onlus v Consorzio Intercomunale Servizi Sociali di Pinerolo, Azienda Sanitaria Locale To3 di Collegno e Pinerolo (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement – Review procedures – Directive 89/665/EEC – Articles 1 and 2c – Action brought against decisions to allow tenderers to participate in, or to exclude them from, a tendering procedure – Time limit for applying for review – 30-day time limit – National legislation excluding the possibility to plead the illegality of an admission decision in an action brought against subsequent decisions – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47 – Right to effective judicial protection)

3

2019/C 172/04

Case C-373/18: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Penafiel — Portugal) — Prosa — Produtos e Serviços Agrícolas v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – Directive 69/335/EEC – Articles 4 and 7 – Incorporation of a capital company – Stamp duty in force on 1 July 1984 – Subsequent abolition of that stamp duty, followed by its reintroduction)

4

2019/C 172/05

Case C-489/18: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the  Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Farmland Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Direct support schemes – Single payment scheme – Single area payment application – Criteria – Lawful user of agricultural land)

5

2019/C 172/06

Case C-689/18: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Patron — Greece) — XT v Elliniko Dimosio (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Internal taxation – Prohibition of discriminatory taxation – Luxury tax – Motor vehicles – Exemption from tax depending on the date on which the goods first entered into service in the taxing Member State – No account taken of the date on which the goods first entered into service in another Member State)

5

2019/C 172/07

Case C-8/19 PPU: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the  Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against RH (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Article 4 – Public references to guilt – Pre-trial detention decision – Remedies – Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of that decision – Observance of the presumption of innocence – Article 267 TFEU – Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the  European Union – Right to have a case heard within a reasonable time. – National legislation restricting the powers of the national courts to make a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or obliging them to adjudicate without waiting for the answer to that request – Disciplinary sanctions for failure to comply with that legislation)

6

2019/C 172/08

Case C-755/18 P: Appeal brought on 30/11/2018 by Harry Shindler and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 26 November 2018 in Case T-458/17 Shindler and  Others v Council

7

2019/C 172/09

Case C-88/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Zărnești (Romania) lodged on 7 February 2019 —  Asociația Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor v TM, UN and Asociația DMPA

7

2019/C 172/10

Case C-96/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich (Austria) lodged on 8 February 2019 — VO v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln

8

2019/C 172/11

Case C-101/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

9

2019/C 172/12

Case C-102/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

10

2019/C 172/13

Case C-108/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București, Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți

10

2019/C 172/14

Case C-112/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 12 February 2019 — Marvin M. v Kreis Heinsberg

11

2019/C 172/15

Case C-118/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2019 — ZS v PVA Landesstelle Salzburg

12

2019/C 172/16

Case C-134/19 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2019 by Bank Refah Kargaran against the judgment delivered on 10 December 2018 in Case T-552/15, Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

12

2019/C 172/17

Case C-135/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 20 February 2019 —  Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v CW

14

2019/C 172/18

Case C-157/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Ehab Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-409/16 Makhlouf v Council

15

2019/C 172/19

Case C-158/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Razan Othman against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-416/16 Othman v Council

16

2019/C 172/20

Case C-159/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-411/16 Syriatel Mobile  Telecom v Council

17

2019/C 172/21

Case C-182/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 26 February 2019 — Pfizer Consumer Healthcare Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and  Customs

18

2019/C 172/22

Case C-208/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz (Austria) lodged on 4 March 2019 — NK v Ms and AS

19

2019/C 172/23

Case C-217/19: Action brought on 8 March 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

20

2019/C 172/24

Case C-231/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 15 March 2019 — Blackrock Investment Management (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her  Majesty's Revenue and Customs

21

2019/C 172/25

Case C-235/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 18 March 2019 — United Biscuits (Pensions Trustees) Limited, United Biscuits Pension Investments Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

22

2019/C 172/26

Case C-239/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 20 March 2019 — Eli Lilly and Company v Genentech Inc.

22

2019/C 172/27

Case C-510/17: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 24 January 2019 (request for a preliminary  ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava — Slovakia) — ML

23

2019/C 172/28

Case C-564/17: Order of the President of the Court of 4 February 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium,  supported by: Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Estonia, Ireland, Kingdom of Spain, French  Republic, Italian Republic, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Hungary

23

2019/C 172/29

Case C-569/17: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 13 February 2019 (request for a preliminary  ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Japan Tobacco International SA, Japan Tobacco International France SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé

24

2019/C 172/30

Case C-657/17: Order of the President of the Court of 25 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the  Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Hussein Mohamad Hussein, other party: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

24

2019/C 172/31

Case C-277/18: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo de Círculo de Lisboa — Portugal) — Henkel Ibérica Portugal, Unipessoal Lda v Comissão de Segurança de Serviços e Bens de Consumo

24

2019/C 172/32

Case C-368/18: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 30 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — Frank Casteels v Ryanair DAC,  formerly Ryanair Ltd

25

2019/C 172/33

Case C-399/18: Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Vereniging Gasopslag Nederland, TAQA Onshore BV, TAQA Piek Gas BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt, other party: Gas Transport Services BV

25

2019/C 172/34

Case C-498/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — ZW v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

25

2019/C 172/35

Case C-614/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2019 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

26

2019/C 172/36

Case C-660/18: Order of the President of the Court of 8 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sundair GmbH v WV, XU, YT, ZS

26

2019/C 172/37

Case C-701/18: Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Geld-für-Flug GmbH v Ryanair DAC

26

2019/C 172/38

Case C-750/18: Order of the President of the Court of 8 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — A, B v C

27

General Court

2019/C 172/39

Cases T-251/17 and T-252/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.) (EU trade mark – Applications for the EU figurative marks Simply. Connected. – Relative ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Scope of the examination which has to be carried out by the Board of Appeal – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 71 of Regulation 2017/1001))

28

2019/C 172/40

Case T-480/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Greece v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from financing – Expenditure incurred by Greece – One-off and flat-rate financial corrections – Cross compliance – Monitoring of statutory management requirements – Risk analysis – Assessment of the financial loss – Obligation to state reasons – Proportionality)

29

2019/C 172/41

Case T-492/17: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2019 — Fleig v EEAS (Civil Service – Contract staff – Contract of indefinite duration – Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS – Termination with notice – Grounds for termination – Breakdown in the relationship of trust – Interests of the service – Manifest error of assessment – Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff – Principle of sound administration – Articles 30 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Procedural issue – Publication on the Internet of  documents included in the file relating to the proceedings before the General Court – Article 17 of the Staff  Regulations)

29

2019/C 172/42

Case T-562/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO — Albea Services (ALBÉA) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark ALBÉA – Earlier international registration designating the European Union – Word mark Balea – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of  Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

30

2019/C 172/43

Case T-611/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2019 — All Star v EUIPO — Carrefour Hypermarchés (Shape of a shoe sole) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Three-dimensional EU trade mark – Shape of a shoe sole – Well known facts – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of defence – Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Rejection of the request to hold a hearing before the Board of Appeal – Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 96(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

31

2019/C 172/44

Case T-779/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — United Wineries v EUIPO — Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín (VIÑA ALARDE) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark VIÑA ALARDE – Earlier national word mark ALARDE – Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Identity of the goods – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

32

2019/C 172/45

Case T-804/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two facing arches) (EU trade mark – Application for an EU figurative mark representing two facing arches – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

33

2019/C 172/46

Case T-259/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Zakłady Chemiczne Siarkopol Tarnobrzeg v EUIPO — EuroChem Agro (Unifoska) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark Unifoska – Earlier EU word mark NITROFOSKA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

33

2019/C 172/47

Case T-186/18: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2019 — Abaco Energy and Others v Commission (Actions for annulment – State aid – Aid scheme for renewable energies – Preliminary examination procedure – Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market – Action brought by recipients – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility)

34

2019/C 172/48

Case T-190/18: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2019 — Solwindet las Lomas v Commission (Actions for annulment – State aid – Aid scheme for renewable energies – Preliminary examination procedure – Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market – Action brought by a recipient – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility)

35

2019/C 172/49

Case T-631/18: Order of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Herholz v EUIPO (#) (EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark # – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Claim for alteration – Manifest inadmissibility)

36

2019/C 172/50

Case T-157/19: Action brought on 8 March 2019 –Șanli v Council

36

2019/C 172/51

Case T-161/19: Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council

37

2019/C 172/52

Case T-162/19: Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Parliament and Council

38

2019/C 172/53

Case T-171/19: Action brought on 20 March 2019 — Hebberecht v EEAS

39

2019/C 172/54

Case T-173/19: Action brought on 22 March 2019 — AV and AW v Parliament

40

2019/C 172/55

Case T-176/19: Action brought on 25 March 2019 — 3V Sigma/ECHA

41

2019/C 172/56

Case T-182/19: Action brought on 28 March 2019 — Puma v EUIPO (SOFTFOAM)

42

2019/C 172/57

Case T-184/19: Action brought on 27 March 2019 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS)

43

2019/C 172/58

Case T-185/19: Action brought on 28 March 2019 — Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission

44

2019/C 172/59

Case T-187/19: Action brought on 29 March 2019 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO (colour mark purple)

45

2019/C 172/60

Case T-188/19: Action brought on 1 April 2019 — United Kingdom v Commission

46

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/1

---

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

(2019/C 172/01)

Last publication

OJ C 164, 13.5.2019

Past publications

OJ C 155, 6.5.2019

OJ C 148, 29.4.2019

OJ C 139, 15.4.2019

OJ C 131, 8.4.2019

OJ C 122, 1.4.2019

OJ C 112, 25.3.2019

These texts are available on:

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

---

General Court

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/2

---

Composition of the Grand Chamber

(2019/C 172/02)

On 10 April 2019, the General Court decided that, in respect of the period from and including 26 September 2019 to 31 August 2022 and pursuant to Article 15(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the fifteen judges composing the Grand Chamber shall be the President of the General Court, the Vice-President, two Presidents of Chambers designated on a rotational basis, the judges of the three-judge chamber before which the case was initially brought and the two judges which should have completed that three-judge chamber were the case to have been assigned to a five-judge chamber, and six judges designated on a rotational basis from among all the judges of the General Court with the exclusion of the Presidents of Chambers, according to, alternately, the order provided for in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure and that order in reverse.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/3

---

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Cooperativa Animazione Valdocco S.C.S. Impresa Sociale Onlus v Consorzio Intercomunale Servizi Sociali di Pinerolo, Azienda Sanitaria Locale To3 di Collegno e Pinerolo

(Case C-54/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Review procedures - Directive 89/665/EEC - Articles 1 and 2c - Action brought against decisions to allow tenderers to participate in, or to exclude them from, a tendering procedure - Time limit for applying for review - 30-day time limit - National legislation excluding the possibility to plead the illegality of an admission decision in an action brought against subsequent decisions - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2019/C 172/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cooperativa Animazione Valdocco S.C:S. Impresa Sociale Onlus

Defendants: Consorzio Intercomunale Servizi Sociali di Pinerolo, Azienda Sanitaria Locale To3 di Collegno e Pinerolo

intervening parties: Ati Cilte Soc. coop. soc., Coesa Pinerolo Soc. coop. soc. arl, La Dua Valadda Soc. coop. soc., Consorzio di Cooperative Sociali il Deltaplano Soc. coop. soc., La Fonte Soc. coop. soc. Onlus, Società Italiana degli Avvocati Amministrativisti (SIAA), Associazione Amministrativisti.it, Camera degli Avvocati Amministrativisti

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, and in particular Articles 1 and 2c thereof, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that actions against the decisions of contracting authorities to allow or exclude tenderers from participation in public procurement award procedures must be brought within 30 days from their communication to the parties concerned, failing which they will be time-barred, provided that decisions communicated contain a summary of the relevant reasons, ensuring that the persons concerned knew or ought to have known of the infringement of EU law alleged. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, and in particular Articles 1 and 2c thereof, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that actions against the decisions of contracting authorities to allow or exclude tenderers from participation in public procurement award procedures must be brought within 30 days from their communication to the parties concerned, failing which they will be time-barred, provided that decisions communicated contain a summary of the relevant reasons, ensuring that the persons concerned knew or ought to have known of the infringement of EU law alleged.

| 2. | Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2014/23, and in particular Articles 1 and 2c thereof, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, in the absence of an action against the decisions of contracting authorities allowing tenderers to participate in public procurement procedures within 30 days from the communication of those decisions, it is no longer possible for the persons concerned to plead the illegality of the decisions in an action against subsequent decisions and, in particular, against award decisions, subject to the proviso that such a time limit may be relied on only if the persons concerned knew or ought to have known from that notification of the illegality they allege. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2014/23, and in particular Articles 1 and 2c thereof, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, in the absence of an action against the decisions of contracting authorities allowing tenderers to participate in public procurement procedures within 30 days from the communication of those decisions, it is no longer possible for the persons concerned to plead the illegality of the decisions in an action against subsequent decisions and, in particular, against award decisions, subject to the proviso that such a time limit may be relied on only if the persons concerned knew or ought to have known from that notification of the illegality they allege.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/4

---

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Penafiel — Portugal) — Prosa — Produtos e Serviços Agrícolas v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-373/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Directive 69/335/EEC - Articles 4 and 7 - Incorporation of a capital company - Stamp duty in force on 1 July 1984 - Subsequent abolition of that stamp duty, followed by its reintroduction)

(2019/C 172/04)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Penafiel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prosa — Produtos e Serviços Agrícolas

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the order

Article 4(1)(a) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation by which a Member State has reintroduced capital duty on the incorporation of a capital company falling within the first of those provisions, which were subject to such duty on 1 July 1984, but which were subsequently exempted from it.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/5

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Farmland Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter

(Case C-489/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Direct support schemes - Single payment scheme - Single area payment application - Criteria - Lawful user of agricultural land)

(2019/C 172/05)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Farmland Kft.

Defendant: Földművelésügyi Miniszter

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Administrative and Labour Court, Budapest, Hungary), by decision of 17 July 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/5

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Patron — Greece) — XT v Elliniko Dimosio

(Case C-689/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Internal taxation - Prohibition of discriminatory taxation - Luxury tax - Motor vehicles - Exemption from tax depending on the date on which the goods first entered into service in the taxing Member State - No account taken of the date on which the goods first entered into service in another Member State)

(2019/C 172/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Dioikitiko Protodikeio Patron

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XT

Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio

Operative part of the order

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which any owner or keeper of a private car with a large cylinder capacity, the age of which, calculated as from the date on which it first entered into service in that Member State and irrespective of any possible prior entry into service in another Member State, is more than ten years, is exempt from luxury tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/6

---

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against RH

(Case C-8/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Article 4 - Public references to guilt - Pre-trial detention decision - Remedies - Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of that decision - Observance of the presumption of innocence - Article 267 TFEU - Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to have a case heard within a reasonable time. - National legislation restricting the powers of the national courts to make a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or obliging them to adjudicate without waiting for the answer to that request - Disciplinary sanctions for failure to comply with that legislation)

(2019/C 172/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Criminal proceedings against

RH

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Article 267 TFEU and Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings which has the result that the national court is obliged to adjudicate on the legality of a pre-trial detention decision without the opportunity to make a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice or to wait for its reply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 267 TFEU and Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings which has the result that the national court is obliged to adjudicate on the legality of a pre-trial detention decision without the opportunity to make a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice or to wait for its reply.

| 2. | Articles 4 and 6 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, read together with recital 16 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements deriving from the presumption of innocence do not preclude, where the competent court examines the reasonable grounds for believing that the suspect or the accused person has committed the offence with which he is charged, in order to give a ruling on the legality of a pre-trial detention decision, that court from comparing the elements of incriminating and exculpatory evidence presented to it and giving reasons for its decision, not only stating the evidence relied on, but also ruling on the objections of the defence counsel of the person concerned, provided that that decision does not present the person detained as being guilty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 4 and 6 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, read together with recital 16 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements deriving from the presumption of innocence do not preclude, where the competent court examines the reasonable grounds for believing that the suspect or the accused person has committed the offence with which he is charged, in order to give a ruling on the legality of a pre-trial detention decision, that court from comparing the elements of incriminating and exculpatory evidence presented to it and giving reasons for its decision, not only stating the evidence relied on, but also ruling on the objections of the defence counsel of the person concerned, provided that that decision does not present the person detained as being guilty.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/7

---

Appeal brought on 30/11/2018 by Harry Shindler and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 26 November 2018 in Case T-458/17 Shindler and Others v Council

(Case C-755/18 P)

(2019/C 172/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Harry Shindler and Others (represented by J. Fouchet, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

By order of 19 March 2019, the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Zărnești (Romania) lodged on 7 February 2019 — Asociația ‘Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor’ v TM, UN and Asociația DMPA

(Case C-88/19)

(2019/C 172/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Zărnești

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociația ‘Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor’

Defendants: TM, UN and Asociația DMPA

Question referred

Must Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) be interpreted as requiring the Member States to lay down derogations from Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15(a) and (b) thereof in cases where animals belonging to threatened species leave their natural habit and are either in its immediate vicinity or completely outside it?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich (Austria) lodged on 8 February 2019 — VO v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln

(Case C-96/19)

(2019/C 172/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VO

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 (1), in particular the last sentence of Article 34(3) and Article 36(2) thereof, be interpreted as precluding national rules which require drivers of vehicles fitted with a digital tachograph within the meaning of Article 2(2)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 to keep on board and produce, during controls, confirmations by the employer, which must fulfil the minimum requirements of the form drawn up by the Commission in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2006/22/EC (2),for individual working days which are missing from the driver card (Article 2(2)(f) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014), but for which no record sheets need be kept on board? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 (1), in particular the last sentence of Article 34(3) and Article 36(2) thereof, be interpreted as precluding national rules which require drivers of vehicles fitted with a digital tachograph within the meaning of Article 2(2)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 to keep on board and produce, during controls, confirmations by the employer, which must fulfil the minimum requirements of the form drawn up by the Commission in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2006/22/EC (2),for individual working days which are missing from the driver card (Article 2(2)(f) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014), but for which no record sheets need be kept on board?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
  Is the form laid down by the Commission in its Decision 2009/959/EU (3) wholly or partially invalid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

Is the form laid down by the Commission in its Decision 2009/959/EU (3) wholly or partially invalid?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ 2014 L 60, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 35).

(3)  Commission Decision of 14 December 2009 amending Decision 2007/230/EC on a form concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities (notified under document C(2009) 9895) (OJ 2009 L 330, p. 80).

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-101/19)

(2019/C 172/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 69 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) make exhaustive provision with respect to the permissible content of package leaflets for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) or may other information within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC be included? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 69 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) make exhaustive provision with respect to the permissible content of package leaflets for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) or may other information within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC be included?

| 2. | May dosage schedules for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC constitute information which is useful to the patient within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May dosage schedules for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC constitute information which is useful to the patient within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 299, p. 1).

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-102/19)

(2019/C 172/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 69 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) make exhaustive provision with respect to the permissible content of package leaflets for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) or may other information within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC be included? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 69 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) make exhaustive provision with respect to the permissible content of package leaflets for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) or may other information within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC be included?

| 2. | May dosage schedules for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC constitute information which is useful to the patient within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May dosage schedules for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC constitute information which is useful to the patient within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 299, p. 1).

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București, Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți

(Case C-108/19)

(2019/C 172/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k.

Respondents: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București, Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți

Question referred

In the context of the sale of goods through an online retail outlet, is Article 33 of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as not applying in the situation where the customer directly enters into a contract with the carrier for the transport of the goods from the Member State of the supplier to his own Member State, in accordance with the dispatching options offered by the supplier, and the goods are not transported on behalf of the supplier?

---

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

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 12 February 2019 — Marvin M. v Kreis Heinsberg

(Case C-112/19)

(2019/C 172/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Aachen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marvin M.

Defendant: Kreis Heinsberg

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a driving licence document, including, specifically, the driving authorisations documented therein, must be strictly recognised by the Member States also in the case where the issuing of that document is based on an exchange of driving licence documents pursuant to Article 11(1) of this directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a driving licence document, including, specifically, the driving authorisations documented therein, must be strictly recognised by the Member States also in the case where the issuing of that document is based on an exchange of driving licence documents pursuant to Article 11(1) of this directive?

| 2. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: May a Member State refuse to recognise the exchanged driving licence document pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 if the exchange by the issuing State was carried out at a time when the Member State from which the material entitlement to drive originates had already withdrawn that entitlement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: May a Member State refuse to recognise the exchanged driving licence document pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 if the exchange by the issuing State was carried out at a time when the Member State from which the material entitlement to drive originates had already withdrawn that entitlement?

| 3. | If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative and an obligation of recognition does exist: May a Member State refuse to recognise the exchanged driving licence document in any event if the Member State in the territory of which the question of recognition of the driving licence document arises can establish, on the basis of ‘indisputable information’, that the material entitlement to drive no longer existed at the time when the driving licence document was exchanged? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative and an obligation of recognition does exist: May a Member State refuse to recognise the exchanged driving licence document in any event if the Member State in the territory of which the question of recognition of the driving licence document arises can establish, on the basis of ‘indisputable information’, that the material entitlement to drive no longer existed at the time when the driving licence document was exchanged?

---

(1)  Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (Recast) (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18).

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2019 — ZS v PVA Landesstelle Salzburg

(Case C-118/19)

(2019/C 172/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZS

Defendant: PVA Landesstelle Salzburg

The case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 22 March 2019.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/12

---

Appeal brought on 18 February 2019 by Bank Refah Kargaran against the judgment delivered on 10 December 2018 in Case T-552/15, Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

(Case C-134/19 P)

(2019/C 172/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bank Refah Kargaran (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul the judgment of 10 December 2018 of the Second Chamber of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-552/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the judgment of 10 December 2018 of the Second Chamber of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-552/15;

| — | principally, grant the form of order sought by the appellant in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union, namely, award damages for compensation in respect of material damage in the sum of EUR 68 651 319 and non-material damage in the sum of EUR 52 547 415; |
| --- | --- |

—

principally, grant the form of order sought by the appellant in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union, namely, award damages for compensation in respect of material damage in the sum of EUR 68 651 319 and non-material damage in the sum of EUR 52 547 415;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | in both cases, order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

in both cases, order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on seven grounds of appeal.

| 1. | First ground of appeal alleging an error of law
  The General Court erred in law by stating that the inadequate reasoning in the contested decision is not a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal alleging an error of law

The General Court erred in law by stating that the inadequate reasoning in the contested decision is not a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal alleging an error of law
  The General Court erred in law by holding that the fact that an applicant who has been the victim of an unlawful sanction adopted by the Council of the European Union has brought an action and has secured the annulment of that sanction renders nugatory the possibility of invoking a sufficiently serious breach of the right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal alleging an error of law

The General Court erred in law by holding that the fact that an applicant who has been the victim of an unlawful sanction adopted by the Council of the European Union has brought an action and has secured the annulment of that sanction renders nugatory the possibility of invoking a sufficiently serious breach of the right to effective judicial protection.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal alleging an error of law
  The General Court erred in law by dismissing a plea, set out by the appellant in its reply, without determining, as required by the case-law, whether the plea set out in the reply is a result of the normal development of arguments stemming from the application in the legal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal alleging an error of law

The General Court erred in law by dismissing a plea, set out by the appellant in its reply, without determining, as required by the case-law, whether the plea set out in the reply is a result of the normal development of arguments stemming from the application in the legal proceedings.

| 4. | Fourth and Fifth grounds of appeal alleging an error of law
  The General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the judgment in Case T-24/11 (1), and by holding that the finding that the Council breached its obligation to disclose to the appellant the evidence adduced against it as regards the grounds for the measures relating to the freezing of funds does not amount to a sufficiently serious breach of EU law giving rise to the liability of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth and Fifth grounds of appeal alleging an error of law

The General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the judgment in Case T-24/11 (1), and by holding that the finding that the Council breached its obligation to disclose to the appellant the evidence adduced against it as regards the grounds for the measures relating to the freezing of funds does not amount to a sufficiently serious breach of EU law giving rise to the liability of the European Union.

| 5. | Sixth ground of appeal alleging distortion of the application
  The General Court, in order to find the appellant’s argument inadmissible, distorted the application by considering that the appellant did not, at the stage of its application, allege the unlawfulness of the fact that the grounds for the inclusion of its name on the list of persons targeted by the restrictive measures failed to comply with the criteria applied by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Sixth ground of appeal alleging distortion of the application

The General Court, in order to find the appellant’s argument inadmissible, distorted the application by considering that the appellant did not, at the stage of its application, allege the unlawfulness of the fact that the grounds for the inclusion of its name on the list of persons targeted by the restrictive measures failed to comply with the criteria applied by the Council.

| 6. | Seventh ground of appeal alleging distortion of the application
  The General Court distorted the application by restricting the grounds of illegality relied on by the appellant solely to a breach of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Seventh ground of appeal alleging distortion of the application

The General Court distorted the application by restricting the grounds of illegality relied on by the appellant solely to a breach of the obligation to state reasons.

---

(1)  Judgment of 6 September 2013, Bank Refah Kargaran v Conseil (T-24/11, EU:T:2013:403).

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 20 February 2019 — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v CW

(Case C-135/19)

(2019/C 172/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: CW

Questions referred

| 1. | Pursuant to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (1) is the Austrian rehabilitation allowance to be regarded






  — | as a sickness benefit pursuant to Article 3(1)(a) of the regulation, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Pursuant to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (1) is the Austrian rehabilitation allowance to be regarded

—

as a sickness benefit pursuant to Article 3(1)(a) of the regulation, or

| — | as an invalidity benefit pursuant to Article 3(1)(c) of the regulation, or |
| --- | --- |

—

as an invalidity benefit pursuant to Article 3(1)(c) of the regulation, or

| — | as an unemployment benefit pursuant to Article 3(1)(h) of the regulation? |
| --- | --- |

—

as an unemployment benefit pursuant to Article 3(1)(h) of the regulation?

| 2. | In the light of primary law, is Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that, as the former State of residence and State of employment, a Member State is obliged to pay benefits such as the Austrian rehabilitation allowance to a person who is resident in another Member State if that person completed the majority of the periods of insurance from the sickness and pension branches as an employee in that other Member State (after the transfer of residence to that country years previously) and has not since then received benefits from the health and pension insurance scheme of the former State of residence and employment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the light of primary law, is Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that, as the former State of residence and State of employment, a Member State is obliged to pay benefits such as the Austrian rehabilitation allowance to a person who is resident in another Member State if that person completed the majority of the periods of insurance from the sickness and pension branches as an employee in that other Member State (after the transfer of residence to that country years previously) and has not since then received benefits from the health and pension insurance scheme of the former State of residence and employment?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/15

---

Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Ehab Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-409/16 Makhlouf v Council

(Case C-157/19 P)

(2019/C 172/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Ehab Makhlouf (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:

| — | Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-409/16, Ehab Makhlouf v Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-409/16, Ehab Makhlouf v Council of the European Union;

And, giving judgment itself,

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

—

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

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds:

The first ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

The second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law and distortion of the facts in so far as the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of his action for annulment to demonstrate that he did not support the Syrian regime;

The third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, (2) according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 141, p. 125).

(2)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 147, p. 14).

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/16

---

Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Razan Othman against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-416/16 Othman v Council

(Case C-158/19 P)

(2019/C 172/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Razan Othman (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:

| — | Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-416/16, Othman v Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-416/16, Othman v Council of the European Union;

And, giving judgment itself,

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

—

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

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds:

The first ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

The second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law and distortion of the facts in so far as the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of his action for annulment to demonstrate that he did not support the Syrian regime;

The third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, (2) according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 141, p. 125).

(2)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 147, p. 14).

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/17

---

Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-411/16 Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

(Case C-159/19 P)

(2019/C 172/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:

| — | Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-411/16, Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-411/16, Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council of the European Union;

And, giving judgment itself,

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

—

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

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds:

The first ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

The second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law and distortion of the facts in so far as the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of its action for annulment to demonstrate that it did not support the Syrian regime;

The third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, (2) according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 141, p. 125).

(2)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 147, p. 14).

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 26 February 2019 — Pfizer Consumer Healthcare Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-182/19)

(2019/C 172/21)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pfizer Consumer Healthcare Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Question referred

Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1140 (1) of 8 July 2016, concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature invalid in so far as it classifies under CN code 3824,specifically 38249096, products which:

| i. | are composed of a bandage-like material, containing ‘heat cells’ including chemicals; |
| --- | --- |

i.

are composed of a bandage-like material, containing ‘heat cells’ including chemicals;

| ii. | operate in similar fashion to a poultice, though providing additional benefits; |
| --- | --- |

ii.

operate in similar fashion to a poultice, though providing additional benefits;

| iii. | through an exothermic chemical reaction relieve pain, decrease stiffness and promote tissue healing (as verified in multiple clinical trials); |
| --- | --- |

iii.

through an exothermic chemical reaction relieve pain, decrease stiffness and promote tissue healing (as verified in multiple clinical trials);

| iv. | are put in forms or packings for retail sale, and |
| --- | --- |

iv.

are put in forms or packings for retail sale, and

| v. | are explicitly presented and marketed as being for medical purposes and as producing the effects identified in (iii) above,
  on the basis of the chemicals being the material or component which gives them their essential character and not under heading 3005 (on the basis of the wording of the relevant headings, section or chapter notes, and explanatory notes under General Rule of Interpretation 1, the operation of General Rule of Interpretation 3(a) requiring classification in accordance with the most specific description, or otherwise)? |
| --- | --- |

v.

are explicitly presented and marketed as being for medical purposes and as producing the effects identified in (iii) above,

on the basis of the chemicals being the material or component which gives them their essential character and not under heading 3005 (on the basis of the wording of the relevant headings, section or chapter notes, and explanatory notes under General Rule of Interpretation 1, the operation of General Rule of Interpretation 3(a) requiring classification in accordance with the most specific description, or otherwise)?

---

(1)  OJ 2016, L 189, p. 1.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz (Austria) lodged on 4 March 2019 — NK v Ms and AS

(Case C-208/19)

(2019/C 172/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NK

Defendants: Ms and AS

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a contract between an architect and a consumer, according to which the architect is required (only) to carry out the planning for the construction of a new single-family house, including the preparation of plans, a contract ‘for the construction of new buildings’ within the meaning of Article 3(3)(f) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a contract between an architect and a consumer, according to which the architect is required (only) to carry out the planning for the construction of a new single-family house, including the preparation of plans, a contract ‘for the construction of new buildings’ within the meaning of Article 3(3)(f) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council? (1)

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
  Is a contract between an architect and a consumer, according to which the architect is required to carry out the planning for the construction of a new single-family house in accordance with the specifications and wishes of his clients and, in this context, is required to draw up plans, a contract for the supply of ‘goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised’ within the meaning of Article 16(c) and Article 2(3) and (4) of Directive 2011/83? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

Is a contract between an architect and a consumer, according to which the architect is required to carry out the planning for the construction of a new single-family house in accordance with the specifications and wishes of his clients and, in this context, is required to draw up plans, a contract for the supply of ‘goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised’ within the meaning of Article 16(c) and Article 2(3) and (4) of Directive 2011/83?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/20

---

Action brought on 8 March 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-217/19)

(2019/C 172/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, E. Ljung Rasmussen, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by recurrently granting authorizations for spring hunting of male Common Eiders (Somateria mollissima) in the province of Åland since 2011, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) and 9(l)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC (1) of the European parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by recurrently granting authorizations for spring hunting of male Common Eiders (Somateria mollissima) in the province of Åland since 2011, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) and 9(l)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC (1) of the European parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds;

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

—

order Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Since 2011, the regional government of the Åland Islands, an autonomous region in Finland, has recurrently each year authorized ‘derogation spring hunting’ of male Common Eider ducks with a total quota of 2000 to 3800 birds during two to three weeks in May. This time period coincides with the period of reproduction of Common Eiders.

Article 7(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC prohibits hunting during the period of reproduction.

Finland claims that the spring hunting of Common Eiders in the Åland Islands is justified by the derogation provision of Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC. According to the case-law of the Court, Member States bear the burden of proof for establishing that the conditions of this provision are met.

The Commission considers that Finland, first, has not established that the derogation regime constitutes ‘judicious use’ within the meaning of Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC. Finland has, in particular, not substantiated with sound scientific evidence that it is ensured that the relevant population of Common Eider ducks is maintained at a satisfactory level.

Secondly, Finland has not demonstrated that the authorized spring hunting only concerns the use of birds ‘in small numbers’ pursuant to Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC.

---

(1)  Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010, L 20, p-7)

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 15 March 2019 — Blackrock Investment Management (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-231/19)

(2019/C 172/24)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Blackrock Investment Management (UK) Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Question referred

On the proper interpretation of Article 135.1(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1), where a single supply of management services within the meaning of that Article is made by a third-party provider to a fund manager and is used by that fund manager both in the management of special investment funds (‘SIFs’) and in the management of other funds that are not special investment funds (‘non-SIFs’):

| (a) | Is that single supply to be subject to a single rate of tax? If so, how is that single rate to be determined? or |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Is that single supply to be subject to a single rate of tax? If so, how is that single rate to be determined? or

| (b) | Is the consideration for that single supply to be apportioned in accordance with the use of the management services (for example, by reference to the amounts of the funds under management in the SIFs and non-SIPs respectively) so as to treat part of the single supply as exempt and part as taxable? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is the consideration for that single supply to be apportioned in accordance with the use of the management services (for example, by reference to the amounts of the funds under management in the SIFs and non-SIPs respectively) so as to treat part of the single supply as exempt and part as taxable?

---

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

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 18 March 2019 — United Biscuits (Pensions Trustees) Limited, United Biscuits Pension Investments Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-235/19)

(2019/C 172/25)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: United Biscuits (Pensions Trustees) Limited, United Biscuits Pension Investments Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Question referred

Are supplies of such pension fund management services (PFM Services) as are provided to the Trustees by (a) Insurers and/or (b) Non-Insurers ‘insurance transactions’ within the meaning of Article 135(1)(a) of the VAT Directive (1) (formerly Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive)?

---

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

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 20 March 2019 — Eli Lilly and Company v Genentech Inc.

(Case C-239/19)

(2019/C 172/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eli Lilly and Company

Defendant: Genentech Inc.

Question referred

Does the SPC Regulation (1) preclude the grant of an SPC to the proprietor of a basic patent in respect of a product which is the subject of a marketing authorisation held by a third party without that party's consent?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009, L 152, p. 1).

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/23

---

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 24 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava — Slovakia) — ML

(Case C-510/17) (1)

(2019/C 172/27)

Language of the case: Slovak

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

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 4 February 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium, supported by: Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Estonia, Ireland, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Hungary

(Case C-564/17) (1)

(2019/C 172/28)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 13.11.2017.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/24

---

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 13 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Japan Tobacco International SA, Japan Tobacco International France SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé

(Case C-569/17) (1)

(2019/C 172/29)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Hussein Mohamad Hussein, other party: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

(Case C-657/17) (1)

(2019/C 172/30)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/24

---

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo de Círculo de Lisboa — Portugal) — Henkel Ibérica Portugal, Unipessoal Lda v Comissão de Segurança de Serviços e Bens de Consumo

(Case C-277/18) (1)

(2019/C 172/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/25

---

Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 30 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — Frank Casteels v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-368/18) (1)

(2019/C 172/32)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Vereniging Gasopslag Nederland, TAQA Onshore BV, TAQA Piek Gas BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt, other party: Gas Transport Services BV

(Case C-399/18) (1)

(2019/C 172/33)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — ZW v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-498/18) (1)

(2019/C 172/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/26

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2019 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-614/18) (1)

(2019/C 172/35)

Language of the case: Slovak

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

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/26

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sundair GmbH v WV, XU, YT, ZS

(Case C-660/18) (1)

(2019/C 172/36)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/26

---

Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Geld-für-Flug GmbH v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-701/18) (1)

(2019/C 172/37)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/27

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — A, B v C

(Case C-750/18) (1)

(2019/C 172/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---

General Court

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.)

(Cases T-251/17 and T-252/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Applications for the EU figurative marks Simply. Connected. - Relative ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Scope of the examination which has to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 71 of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2019/C 172/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Robert Bosch GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Mensing and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2017 (Case R 948/2016-5) and 10 March 2017 (Case R 947/2016-5), regarding applications for registration of the figurative signs Simply. Connected. as EU trade marks

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-251/17 and T-252/17 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-251/17 and T-252/17 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders Robert Bosch GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Robert Bosch GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-480/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Greece - One-off and flat-rate financial corrections - Cross compliance - Monitoring of statutory management requirements - Risk analysis - Assessment of the financial loss - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality)

(2019/C 172/40)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos and Α. Vassilopoulou, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017 L 165, p. 37), in so far as it imposes on the Hellenic Republic, following the investigation under reference XC/2014/002/GR, one-off and flat-rate financial corrections amounting in total to EUR 1182 054.17 because of weaknesses in the application of cross compliance (EAGF and EAFRD).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2019 — Fleig v EEAS

(Case T-492/17) (1)

(Civil Service - Contract staff - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS - Termination with notice - Grounds for termination - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Interests of the service - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff - Principle of sound administration - Articles 30 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Procedural issue - Publication on the Internet of documents included in the file relating to the proceedings before the General Court - Article 17 of the Staff Regulations)

(2019/C 172/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stephan Fleig (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 19 September 2016 by which the director of the ‘Human Resources’ Directorate of the EEAS, acting in his capacity as the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment, terminated the applicant’s employment contract with effect from 19 June 2017 and, secondly, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered following that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Stephan Fleig to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Stephan Fleig to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO — Albea Services (ALBÉA)

(Case T-562/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark ALBÉA - Earlier international registration designating the European Union - Word mark Balea - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 172/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and C. Mellein, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Albea Services (Gennevilliers, France) (represented by: J.-H. de Mitry, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2017 (Case R 1870/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt and Albea Services.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 May 2017 (Case R 1870/2016-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 May 2017 (Case R 1870/2016-1);

| 2. | Declares that the parties are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that the parties are to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2019 — All Star v EUIPO — Carrefour Hypermarchés (Shape of a shoe sole)

(Case T-611/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a shoe sole - Well known facts - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Rejection of the request to hold a hearing before the Board of Appeal - Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 96(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 172/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: All Star CV (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger, lawyers, and S. Malynicz QC)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Carrefour Hypermarchés (Évry, France) (represented by: C. Verneret, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2017 (Case R 952/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Carrefour Hypermarchés and All Star.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders All Star CV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders All Star CV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — United Wineries v EUIPO — Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín (VIÑA ALARDE)

(Case T-779/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark VIÑA ALARDE - Earlier national word mark ‘ALARDE’ - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2019/C 172/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: United Wineries, SA (Cenicero, Spain) (represented by: J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín, SL (Cigales, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 (Case R 281/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín and United Wineries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders United Wineries, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders United Wineries, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two facing arches)

(Case T-804/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing two facing arches - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 172/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2017 (Case R 1887/2016-1) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign representing two facing arches as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg v EUIPO — EuroChem Agro (Unifoska)

(Case T-259/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Unifoska - Earlier EU word mark NITROFOSKA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 172/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg (Tarnobrzeg, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: EuroChem Agro GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Schmidhuber and A. Haberer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2018 (Case R 1503/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between EuroChem Agro and Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/34

---

Order of the General Court of 25 March 2019 — Abaco Energy and Others v Commission

(Case T-186/18) (1)

(Actions for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme for renewable energies - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Action brought by recipients - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 172/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Abaco Energy, SA (Madrid, Spain) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: initially P. Holtrop, P. Kuypers and M. de Wit, and subsequently P. Holtrop, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, P. Němečková and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 7384 final of 10 November 2017 relating to State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain (Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of Spain or EDP España. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of Spain or EDP España.

| 3. | Abaco Energy, SA, and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Abaco Energy, SA, and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene.

| 4. | Abaco Energy and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and EDP España shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Abaco Energy and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and EDP España shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/35

---

Order of the General Court of 25 March 2019 — Solwindet las Lomas v Commission

(Case T-190/18) (1)

(Actions for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme for renewable energies - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Action brought by a recipient - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 172/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Solwindet las Lomas, SL (Girona, Spain) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, P. Němečková and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 7384 final of 10 November 2017 relating to State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain (Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of Spain or EDP España. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of Spain or EDP España.

| 3. | Solwindet las Lomas, SL shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Solwindet las Lomas, SL shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene.

| 4. | Solwindet las Lomas, the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and EDP España shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Solwindet las Lomas, the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and EDP España shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/36

---

Order of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Herholz v EUIPO (#)

(Case T-631/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark # - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Claim for alteration - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2019/C 172/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Herholz Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG (Ahaus, Germany) (represented by: D. Sprenger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Sesma Merino and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2018 (Case R 445/2018-2), regarding an application for registration of the word sign # as an EU trade mark

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Herholz Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Herholz Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/36

---

Action brought on 8 March 2019 –Șanli v Council

(Case T-157/19)

(2019/C 172/50)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Dalokay Șanli (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Gürses, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/24 of 8 January 2019 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/24 of 8 January 2019 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019, and

| — | 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 six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law: the placing of the PKK on the list is no longer justified since the PKK is not a terrorist organisation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: the placing of the PKK on the list is no longer justified since the PKK is not a terrorist organisation.

| 2. | Second plea in law: the applicant’s name should not be included on the list since he has never been convicted of terrorism offences or accused of such acts. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: the applicant’s name should not be included on the list since he has never been convicted of terrorism offences or accused of such acts.

| 3. | Third plea in law: there is no evidence that the applicant has carried out terrorist activities or that he can be linked to such activities. There is no evidence behind the allegation that he carried out recruiting and financing activities. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: there is no evidence that the applicant has carried out terrorist activities or that he can be linked to such activities. There is no evidence behind the allegation that he carried out recruiting and financing activities.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: the fundamental rights of defence of the applicant and the right to effective judicial protection have been breached in so far as he has not been able to defend himself against the allegations made against him. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: the fundamental rights of defence of the applicant and the right to effective judicial protection have been breached in so far as he has not been able to defend himself against the allegations made against him.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: the Council measures at issue are insufficiently reasoned considering that supporting evidence for the imposition of a sanction is lacking. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: the Council measures at issue are insufficiently reasoned considering that supporting evidence for the imposition of a sanction is lacking.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law: Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP has been infringed in so far as no precise information or material in the relevant file indicating that a decision was taken by a competent authority within the meaning of that article has been produced. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law: Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP has been infringed in so far as no precise information or material in the relevant file indicating that a decision was taken by a competent authority within the meaning of that article has been produced.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/37

---

Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council

(Case T-161/19)

(2019/C 172/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: F. González Díaz, B. Langeheine and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application for annulment to be admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application for annulment to be admissible;

| — | annul Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);

| — | order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation is invalid by reason of the inadequacy of Article 114 TFEU as a legal basis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation is invalid by reason of the inadequacy of Article 114 TFEU as a legal basis.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation is in breach of the principle of subsidiarity and lacks motivation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation is in breach of the principle of subsidiarity and lacks motivation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation in in breach of the principle of proportionality and lacks motivation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation in in breach of the principle of proportionality and lacks motivation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the procedure followed for the adoption of Article 50 of the contested regulation infringed the Better Regulation principles. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the procedure followed for the adoption of Article 50 of the contested regulation infringed the Better Regulation principles.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation limits the applicant’s fundamental right to property and freedom to conduct a business. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation limits the applicant’s fundamental right to property and freedom to conduct a business.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 1).

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/38

---

Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Parliament and Council

(Case T-162/19)

(2019/C 172/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain), and Telefónica de España, SA (Madrid) (represented by: F. González Díaz, B. Langeheine and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the application for annulment to be admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application for annulment to be admissible;

| — | annul Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);

| — | order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law which are, in essence, either identical or similar to the pleas in law relied on in Case T-161/19, Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 1).

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/39

---

Action brought on 20 March 2019 — Hebberecht v EEAS

(Case T-171/19)

(2019/C 172/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Chantal Hebberecht (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: K. Bicard, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare Ms Hebberecht’s application admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare Ms Hebberecht’s application admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the penalty imposed on the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the penalty imposed on the applicant;

| — | order the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay the applicant EUR 36 000 in respect of arrears of salary and default interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay the applicant EUR 36 000 in respect of arrears of salary and default interest;

| — | order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 450 000 as compensation for injury to her health, material and non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 450 000 as compensation for injury to her health, material and non-material damage;

| — | in the alternative, order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 300 000 as compensation for those damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 300 000 as compensation for those damages;

| — | in the further alternative, order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 150 000 as compensation for those damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 150 000 as compensation for those damages;

| — | in the still further alternative, order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 as compensation for those damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the still further alternative, order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 as compensation for those damages;

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

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that the findings made against her by the tribunal de première instance du Hainaut (Court of First Instance, Hainaut, Belgium) in its judgment of 13 December 2017, relied on by the EEAS as constituting a particularly serious failure to comply with the obligations of officials, inter alia under Article 12 of the Staff Regulations, are incorrect. She also claims that the penalties imposed on her are discriminatory.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/40

---

Action brought on 22 March 2019 — AV and AW v Parliament

(Case T-173/19)

(2019/C 172/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: AV and AW (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently,

| — | annul the contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement, first, of Article 78 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p.1) and, secondly, of the rights of the defence. The applicants submit in that regard that in the present case no administrative decision relating to a recovery order was brought to their attention before the adoption of the contested decisions concerning recovery of overpayments. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement, first, of Article 78 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p.1) and, secondly, of the rights of the defence. The applicants submit in that regard that in the present case no administrative decision relating to a recovery order was brought to their attention before the adoption of the contested decisions concerning recovery of overpayments.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that there was no valid legal basis, on the ground that the disciplinary context in which the contested decisions were made precluded those decisions being based on Article 85 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that there was no valid legal basis, on the ground that the disciplinary context in which the contested decisions were made precluded those decisions being based on Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations. According to the applicants, even if the contested decisions could be based on Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, those decisions are vitiated by illegality, on the ground that the conditions for the application of that provision have not been met in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations. According to the applicants, even if the contested decisions could be based on Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, those decisions are vitiated by illegality, on the ground that the conditions for the application of that provision have not been met in the present case.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials which stems from that principle, on the ground, inter alia, that the defendant did not take the trouble to verify the accuracy of the irregularity detected by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials which stems from that principle, on the ground, inter alia, that the defendant did not take the trouble to verify the accuracy of the irregularity detected by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF).

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Parliament, in so far as it adopted the contested decisions mainly, if not exclusively, in order to achieve a purpose other than the purposes of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, namely in order to satisfy the desire to penalise the applicants by means other than a disciplinary measure. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Parliament, in so far as it adopted the contested decisions mainly, if not exclusively, in order to achieve a purpose other than the purposes of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, namely in order to satisfy the desire to penalise the applicants by means other than a disciplinary measure.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/41

---

Action brought on 25 March 2019 — 3V Sigma/ECHA

(Case T-176/19)

(2019/C 172/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 3V Sigma SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Bryant and S. Hainsworth, Solicitors, and C. Krampitz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible;

| — | annul the decision of the defendant’s board of appeal of 15 January 2019 regarding the substance evaluation of bis(2-ethylhexyl) 4,4’-{6-[4-tert-butylcarbamoyl) anilino]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4- diyldiimino}dibenzoate insofar as it (i) dismissed the applicant’s administrative appeal against the original decision and (ii) decided that the applicant must provide information on the OECD TG 308 study by 22 October 2020; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the defendant’s board of appeal of 15 January 2019 regarding the substance evaluation of bis(2-ethylhexyl) 4,4’-{6-[4-tert-butylcarbamoyl) anilino]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4- diyldiimino}dibenzoate insofar as it (i) dismissed the applicant’s administrative appeal against the original decision and (ii) decided that the applicant must provide information on the OECD TG 308 study by 22 October 2020; and

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

—

order defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that an error in law and a manifest error of assessment were committed in considering that the OECD TG 308 study is necessary.
  The applicant submits that the defendant’s board of appeal would have erred in law and would have made a manifest error of assessment in failing to distinguish, on one hand, the conditions under which tests must be carried out in order to establish the existence or, otherwise, transformation and/or degradation products of a substance and, on the other hand, the conditions under which an assessment of the persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic properties or very persistent and very bioaccumulative properties of any such transformation and/or degradation product must be carried out. As a result, the applicant submits that the defendant’s board of appeal would have erroneously concluded that the OECD TG 308 study requested from the applicant was necessary. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that an error in law and a manifest error of assessment were committed in considering that the OECD TG 308 study is necessary.

The applicant submits that the defendant’s board of appeal would have erred in law and would have made a manifest error of assessment in failing to distinguish, on one hand, the conditions under which tests must be carried out in order to establish the existence or, otherwise, transformation and/or degradation products of a substance and, on the other hand, the conditions under which an assessment of the persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic properties or very persistent and very bioaccumulative properties of any such transformation and/or degradation product must be carried out. As a result, the applicant submits that the defendant’s board of appeal would have erroneously concluded that the OECD TG 308 study requested from the applicant was necessary.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s board of appeal erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the designated testing temperatures are appropriate.
  The applicant submits that the defendant’s board of appeal would have erred in law and would have made a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the designated testing temperature for the OECD TG 308 study, namely 20 oC, was appropriate. The defendant’s board of appeal would have failed to take into account the fact that performing the study at higher temperature would have a material impact on the concentrations of any transformation and/or degradation products formed and, consequently, on which, if any of them, would then be subject to a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic/very persistent and very bioaccumulative assessment, thus critically undermining the appropriateness of the study. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s board of appeal erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the designated testing temperatures are appropriate.

The applicant submits that the defendant’s board of appeal would have erred in law and would have made a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the designated testing temperature for the OECD TG 308 study, namely 20 oC, was appropriate. The defendant’s board of appeal would have failed to take into account the fact that performing the study at higher temperature would have a material impact on the concentrations of any transformation and/or degradation products formed and, consequently, on which, if any of them, would then be subject to a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic/very persistent and very bioaccumulative assessment, thus critically undermining the appropriateness of the study.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/42

---

Action brought on 28 March 2019 — Puma v EUIPO (SOFTFOAM)

(Case T-182/19)

(2019/C 172/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark SOFTFOAM — Application for registration No 17 363 318

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2019 in Case R 1399/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/43

---

Action brought on 27 March 2019 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS)

(Case T-184/19)

(2019/C 172/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd (Cochin, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, QC and L. Oommen, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Avizel SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for figurative mark AUREA BIOLABS — Application for registration No 15 836 737

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2019 in Case R 814/2018-2 (CORR)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the payment of the Applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of the Applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

| — | In support of its decision, the Board of Appeal relies on an invalid provision of law; |
| --- | --- |

—

In support of its decision, the Board of Appeal relies on an invalid provision of law;

| — | Had there been an obvious error of law, the appropriate course was to revoke the previous decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Had there been an obvious error of law, the appropriate course was to revoke the previous decision;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the principles of natural justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/44

---

Action brought on 28 March 2019 — Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission

(Case T-185/19)

(2019/C 172/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (Sebastopol, California, United States), Right to Know CLG (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor, A. Grünwald, J. Hackl and C. Nüßing, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul decision C(2019) 639 final of the European Commission of 22 January 2019 (including the initial decision of 15 November 2018 with reference GROW/D3/ALR/dr (2018) 5993057); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision C(2019) 639 final of the European Commission of 22 January 2019 (including the initial decision of 15 November 2018 with reference GROW/D3/ALR/dr (2018) 5993057);

| — | in the alternative, refer the matter back to the European Commission; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the matter back to the European Commission; and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misinterpreted and/or misapplied Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) since this provision does not protect the requested harmonised standards:






  — | No copyright protection of the requested harmonised standards is possible because they are part of EU Law; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misinterpreted and/or misapplied Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) since this provision does not protect the requested harmonised standards:

—

No copyright protection of the requested harmonised standards is possible because they are part of EU Law;

| — | The requested harmonised standards lack originality and therefore do not benefit from copyright protection; |
| --- | --- |

—

The requested harmonised standards lack originality and therefore do not benefit from copyright protection;

| — | The defendant did not demonstrate the alleged undermining of the commercial interest of the standardisation organization. |
| --- | --- |

—

The defendant did not demonstrate the alleged undermining of the commercial interest of the standardisation organization.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed the last clause of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since it wrongly denied that the applicants have an overriding public interest in access to the requested harmonised standards:






  — | The concepts of the rule of law and fundamental rights require free access to the laws of the European Union; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed the last clause of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since it wrongly denied that the applicants have an overriding public interest in access to the requested harmonised standards:

—

The concepts of the rule of law and fundamental rights require free access to the laws of the European Union;

| — | The requested standards contain environmental information and particularly information on emissions into the environment and therefore must be released according to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

The requested standards contain environmental information and particularly information on emissions into the environment and therefore must be released according to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006; (2)

| — | The defendant did not give adequate reasons for the denial of the overriding public interest. |
| --- | --- |

—

The defendant did not give adequate reasons for the denial of the overriding public interest.

---

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

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/45

---

Action brought on 29 March 2019 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO (colour mark purple)

(Case T-187/19)

(2019/C 172/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, Barrister and R. Jacob, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union colour mark purple (PANTONE: 2587C) — Application for registration No 14 596 951

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2019 in Case R 1870/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by finding that the sign lacked inherent distinctive character so that it could not validly be registered as a trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by finding that the sign lacked inherent distinctive character so that it could not validly be registered as a trade mark;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to find that the sign had acquired distinctiveness through the use made of it by the applicant for annulment and/or with its authorisation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to find that the sign had acquired distinctiveness through the use made of it by the applicant for annulment and/or with its authorisation.

---

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/46

---

Action brought on 1 April 2019 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-188/19)

(2019/C 172/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, Agent, T. Johnston and J. Scott, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision to adopt the Final Audit Report, Audit Reference Number 14-BA262-013, as final, as notified to the United Kingdom Government by letter dated 20 December 2018 and received on 21 January 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision to adopt the Final Audit Report, Audit Reference Number 14-BA262-013, as final, as notified to the United Kingdom Government by letter dated 20 December 2018 and received on 21 January 2019;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Auditors erred in law in finding that daily timesheets were required and, in doing so, misinterpreted the Grant Agreements. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Auditors erred in law in finding that daily timesheets were required and, in doing so, misinterpreted the Grant Agreements.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Final Audit Report unlawfully frustrates the Met Office’s legitimate expectation that its ex post facto time recording system and its monthly calculation of indirect costs rates would satisfy the requirements of the Grant Agreements. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Final Audit Report unlawfully frustrates the Met Office’s legitimate expectation that its ex post facto time recording system and its monthly calculation of indirect costs rates would satisfy the requirements of the Grant Agreements.

---