# Official Journal C 399/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 399 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6225 November 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 399

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6225 November 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2019/C 399/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2019/C 399/01

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

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2019/C 399/02 | Case C-136/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — GC, AF, BH, ED v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Personal data — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data contained on websites — Directive 95/46/EC — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Search engines on the internet — Processing of data appearing on websites — Special categories of data referred to in Article 8 of Directive 95/46 and Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation 2016/679 — Applicability of those articles to operators of a search engine — Extent of that operator’s obligations with respect to those articles — Publication of data on websites solely for journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression — Effect on the handling of a request for de-referencing — Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) | 2 |
| 2019/C 399/03 | Case C-507/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Personal data — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of such data — Directive 95/46/EC — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Internet search engines — Processing of data on web pages — Territorial scope of the right to de-referencing) | 3 |
| 2019/C 399/04 | Case C-526/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Directive 2004/18/EC — Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Public works concession contracts — Extension of the duration of an existing concession for the construction and operation of a motorway, without publication of a contract notice) | 4 |
| 2019/C 399/05 | Case C-700/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Kyritz v Wolf-Henning Peters (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(b) and (c) — Exemptions — Hospital and medical care — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — No confidential relationship between the person providing the care and the patient) | 5 |
| 2019/C 399/06 | Case C-11/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 September 2019 — Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds and economic resources — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the appellant’s name — Decision by an authority of a third State — Council’s obligation to verify that that decision was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to state reasons) | 6 |
| 2019/C 399/07 | Case C-32/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse v Michael Moser (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 60 — Family benefits — Right to payment of the difference between the parental allowance paid in the Member State having primary competence and the childcare allowance provided by the Member State having secondary competence) | 7 |
| 2019/C 399/08 | Case C-34/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Ottília Lovasné Tóth v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 3(1) and (3) — Annex to Directive 93/13/EEC — Point 1(m) and (q) — Loan agreement secured by a mortgage — Notarial instrument — Affixation of the enforcement clause by a notary — Reversal of the burden of proof — Article 5(1) — Plain and intelligible drafting) | 8 |
| 2019/C 399/09 | Case C-47/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Skarb Pánstwa Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej — Generalny Dyrektor Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v Stephan Riel, acting as liquidator of Alpine Bau GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Scope — Article 1(2)(b) — Bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings — Not included — Action for a declaration that a claim exists for the purposes of its registration in insolvency proceedings — Application of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 41 — Content of the lodgement of a claim — Main and secondary insolvency proceedings — Lis pendens and related actions — Application by analogy of Article 29(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 — Inadmissibility) | 9 |
| 2019/C 399/10 | Case C-63/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Vitali SpA v Autostrade per l’Italia SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 71 — Subcontracting — National legislation limiting the possibility of subcontracting to 30 % of the total amount of the contract) | 10 |
| 2019/C 399/11 | Joined Cases C-95/18 and C 96/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — the Netherlands) — Sociale Verzekeringsbank v F. van den Berg (C-95/18), H.D. Giesen (C-95/18), C.E. Franzen (C-96/18) (References for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 13 — Applicable law — Resident of a Member State falling within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Allowances under the old-age pension or child benefit schemes — Member State of residence and Member State of employment — Refusal) | 10 |
| 2019/C 399/12 | Case C-222/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — VIPA Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cross-border healthcare — Directive 2011/24/EU — Articles 3(k) and 11(1) — Prescription — Definition — Recognition of a prescription issued in another Member State by an authorised person — Conditions — Free movement of goods — Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports — Articles 35 and 36 TFEU — Restriction on the dispensing by a pharmacy of prescription-only medicinal products — Order form issued in another Member State — Justification — Protection of human health and human life — Directive 2001/83/EC — Second paragraph of Article 81 — Supply of medicinal products to the public of a Member State) | 11 |
| 2019/C 399/13 | Case C-251/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Trace Sport v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commercial policy — Anti-dumping duties — Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia — Extension to those countries of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 — Validity — Admissibility — No action for annulment brought by the applicant in the main proceedings — Associated importer — Standing to bring an action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 13 — Circumvention — Article 18 — Non-cooperation — Proof — Body of evidence) | 12 |
| 2019/C 399/14 | Case C-358/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 — Republic of Poland v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland — Producer group — Producer organisation) | 13 |
| 2019/C 399/15 | Joined Cases C-366/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid — Spain) — José Manuel Ortiz Mesonero v UTE Luz Madrid Centro (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2010/18/EU — Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave — National legislation making the granting of parental leave conditional on a reduction in working time, with a proportional reduction in pay — Shift work with variable hours — Request of the worker to perform his work at a fixed schedule to care for his minor children — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in employment and occupation — Indirect discrimination — Partial inadmissibility) | 14 |
| 2019/C 399/16 | Case C-467/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Lukovit — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against EP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Articles 6, 47 and Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2012/13/EU — Article 8(2) — Directive 2013/48/EU — Article 12 — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Article 3 — National legislation authorising, on therapeutic and safety grounds, the committal to a psychiatric hospital of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society — Right to information about rights — Right of access to a lawyer — Right to an effective remedy — Presumption of innocence — Vulnerable persons) | 14 |
| 2019/C 399/17 | Case C-527/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Gesamtverband Autoteile-Handel eV v KIA Motors Corporation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Motor vehicles — Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 — First sentence of Article 6(1) — Vehicle repair and maintenance information — Manufacturers’ obligations towards independent operators — Unrestricted access to that information in a standardised format — Procedures — Prohibition of discrimination) | 15 |
| 2019/C 399/18 | Case C-544/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal — United Kingdom) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Henrika Dakneviciute (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Self-employment — National of a Member State who ceases to be self-employed because of the physical constraints in the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth — Retention of self-employed status) | 16 |
| 2019/C 399/19 | Case C-556/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 September 2019 — Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — European Union water policy — Directive 2000/60/EC — Article 13(1) and (7) and Article 15(1) — Failure to adopt, publish and communicate to the European Commission revised and updated river basin management plans for Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and El Hierro (Spain) — Article 14 — Failure to inform and consult the public relating to the revision and the updating) | 17 |
| 2019/C 399/20 | Case C-600/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — UTEP 2006. SRL v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Hatósági Főosztály, Hatósági, Építésügyi és Oktatási Osztály (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Road transport — Articles 91 and 92 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 — Article 32(3), Article 33(1) and Article 41(1) — Infringement of the rules on the use of tachographs — Duty of Member States to make provision for effective, dissuasive and non-discriminatory penalties — Resident and non-resident small and medium-sized enterprises — Differential treatment) | 18 |
| 2019/C 399/21 | Joined Cases C-662/18 and C-672/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — AQ (C-662/18), DN (C-672/18) v Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publics (References for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Directive 90/434/EEC — Directive 2009/133/EC — Article 8 — Capital gains relating to exchange of securities transactions — Transfer of securities received at the time of the exchange — Capital gain on which tax has been deferred — Taxation of the shareholders — Taxation on the basis of different bases of assessment and rate rules — Reductions of the basis of assessment taking into account the period for which securities have been held) | 18 |
| 2019/C 399/22 | Case C-728/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2018 by EM Research Organization, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2018 in Case T-180/17: EM Research Organization v EUIPO - Christoph Fischer e.a | 19 |
| 2019/C 399/23 | Case C-293/19 P: Appeal brought on 10 April 2019 by Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2019 in Case T-231/18: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO - Lupu (Djili) | 20 |
| 2019/C 399/24 | Case C- 351/19 P: Appeal brought on 30 April 2019 by Bruno Gollnisch against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2019 in Case T-375/18, Gollnisch v Parliament | 20 |
| 2019/C 399/25 | Case C-545/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 17 July 2019 — ALLIANZGI-FONDS AEVN v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira | 20 |
| 2019/C 399/26 | Case C-617/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2019 — Granarolo S.p.A. v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others | 22 |
| 2019/C 399/27 | Case C-629/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 23 August 2019 — Sappi Austria Produktions-GmbH & Co KG and Wasserverband Region Gratkorn-Gratwein | 23 |
| 2019/C 399/28 | Case C-632/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie v Metalen Galler NV, KGH Belgium NV, LW-Idee GmbH | 23 |
| 2019/C 399/29 | Case C-633/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie v Metalen Galler NV, Vollers Belgium NV, LW-Idee GmbH | 25 |
| 2019/C 399/30 | Case C-640/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 28 August 2019 — Azienda Agricola Ambrosi Nicola Giuseppe and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali | 26 |
| 2019/C 399/31 | Case C-643/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 30 August 2019 — RESOPRE — Sociedade Revendedora de Aparelhos de Precisão SA v Município de Peso da Régua | 27 |
| 2019/C 399/32 | Case C-648/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2019 — EUflight.de GmbH v Eurowings GmbH | 28 |
| 2019/C 399/33 | Case C-652/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 2 September 2019 — KO v Fallimento Consulmarketing SpA | 29 |
| 2019/C 399/34 | Case C-653/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 September 2019 — Criminal proceedings against DK | 29 |
| 2019/C 399/35 | Case C-662/19 P: Appeal brought on 4 September 2019 by NRW.Bank against the judgment delivered on 26 June 2019 in Case T-466/16 NRW.Bank v SRB | 30 |
| 2019/C 399/36 | Case C-663/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Gera (Germany) lodged on 6 September 2019 — MM v Volkswagen AG | 31 |
| 2019/C 399/37 | Case C-686/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 18 September 2019 — Soho Group SIA v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs | 32 |
| 2019/C 399/38 | Case C-687/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 18 September 2019 — Ryanair Ltd v PJ | 33 |
| 2019/C 399/39 | Case C-710/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 25 September 2019 — G.M.A. v Belgian State | 33 |
| 2019/C 399/40 | Case C-730/19: Action brought on 3 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria | 34 |
| 2019/C 399/41 | Case C-743/19: Action brought on 9 October 2019 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union | 35 |
| 2019/C 399/42 | Case C-744/19: Action brought on 10 October 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic | 36 |
| | General Court |
| 2019/C 399/43 | Joined Cases T-119/07 and T-207/07: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Italia and Eurallumina v Commission (State aid — Directive 2003/96/EC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise duty — Selective nature — Guidelines on national regional aid — Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection of 2001 — Legitimate expectations — Presumption of legality attaching to measures of the institutions — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons — Contradictory reasoning) | 37 |
| 2019/C 399/44 | Joined Cases T-129/07 and T-130/07: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Ireland and Aughinish Alumina v Commission (State aid — Directive 2003/96/EC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise duty — Selective nature of the measure — Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection of 2001) | 38 |
| 2019/C 399/45 | Case T-386/14 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — FIH Holding and FIH v Commission (State aid — Banking sector — Aid granted to FIH in the form of a transfer of its impaired assets to a new subsidiary and the subsequent purchase thereof by the body responsible for guaranteeing financial stability — State aid for banks during the crisis — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Admissibility — Calculation of the amount of the aid — Manifest error of assessment) | 39 |
| 2019/C 399/46 | Case T-417/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Achemos Grupė and Achema v Commission (State aid — Aid to Klaipėdos Nafta for the construction and management of an LNG terminal at the Klaipėda Seaport — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Article 106(2) TFEU — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Decision not to raise any objections — Security of supply — Service of general economic interest) | 39 |
| 2019/C 399/47 | Case T-153/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — FV v Council (Civil service — Officials — Staff reports — 2014 and 2015 appraisal exercises — Interest in bringing proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials) | 40 |
| 2019/C 399/48 | Case T-176/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — WhiteWave Services v EUIPO — Fernandes (VeGa one) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark VeGa one — International registration designating the European Union in respect of the earlier word mark Vegas — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 41 |
| 2019/C 399/49 | Case T-228/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings, whether or not finished, originating in China and Taiwan — Imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties — Normal value — Adjustments — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons) | 42 |
| 2019/C 399/50 | Case T-433/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union (Access to documents — Court of Justice of the European Union — Documents held by an institution in the exercise of its administrative functions — Application for access submitted by a former judge of the General Court — Partial refusal of access — Non-contractual liability of the European Union) | 42 |
| 2019/C 399/51 | Case T-476/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance diflubenzuron — Review of approval — Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Rights of the defence — Ultra vires — Manifest error of assessment — Procedure for renewal of approval — Article 14 of Regulation No 1107/2009 — Imposition, in the context of the review procedure, of additional restrictions limiting the use of the active substance at issue without waiting for the outcome of the renewal procedure — Proportionality) | 43 |
| 2019/C 399/52 | Case T-629/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission (ERDF — ESF — Reduction in financial assistance — Public procurement — Article 99(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC — Specific exclusion — Public service contracts for the acquisition, development, production or co-production of programme material intended for broadcasting by broadcasters) | 44 |
| 2019/C 399/53 | Case T-786/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — BTC v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement entered into in the context of the eTEN framework programme, relating to trans-European telecommunications networks — SafeChemo project — Investigation report from OLAF finding certain expenses incurred to be ineligible — Repayment in part of the sums paid — Counterclaim) | 45 |
| 2019/C 399/54 | Case T-27/18 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — FV v Council (Civil service — Officials — Staff report — 2013 appraisal exercise — Interest in bringing proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials) | 45 |
| 2019/C 399/55 | Case T-65/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Venezuela v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela — Action brought by a third State — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 46 |
| 2019/C 399/56 | Case T-225/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Manéa v CdT (Civil service — Temporary members of staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew the applicant’s contract — Withdrawal of the decision and adoption of a new decision refusing renewal with effect from the date of the first decision — Liability) | 47 |
| 2019/C 399/57 | Case T-286/18: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Azarov v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection) | 48 |
| 2019/C 399/58 | Case T-359/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Unifarco v EUIPO — GD Tecnologie Interdisciplinari Farmaceutiche (TRICOPID) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark TRICOPID — Earlier national figurative mark TRICODIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 49 |
| 2019/C 399/59 | Case T-379/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — WI v Commission (Civil service — Pensions — Survivor’s pension — Registered non-marital partnership — Refusal to grant — Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulation — Access to civil marriage — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Exceptional Circumstances) | 49 |
| 2019/C 399/60 | Case T-399/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — TrekStor v EUIPO (Theatre) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Theatre — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 50 |
| 2019/C 399/61 | Case T-464/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO — Rubio Snacks (Tia Rosa) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Tia Rosa — Earlier national figurative mark TIA ROSA — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 51 |
| 2019/C 399/62 | Case T-502/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — IRF (MediWell) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MediWell — Earlier national word mark WELL AND WELL and earlier national figurative mark well & well LES PHARMACIENS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 51 |
| 2019/C 399/63 | Case T-528/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — XI v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Occupational disease — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Reply to the complaint containing medical data — Medical confidentiality — Request for deletion of that data — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Right to privacy — Liability) | 52 |
| 2019/C 399/64 | Case T-532/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Aroma Essence v EUIPO — Refan Bulgaria (washing sponge) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a washing sponge — Earlier designs — Grounds for invalidity — Examination by the Board of Appeal of its own motion of the facts constituting disclosure — Burden of proof on the invalidity applicant — Requirements relating to the reproduction of the prior design) | 53 |
| 2019/C 399/65 | Case T-545/18: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — YL v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2017 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 7 with effect from 1 January 2017 — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Article 9(3) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Misuse of powers — Disciplinary measure) | 54 |
| 2019/C 399/66 | Case T-633/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Rose Gesellschaft v EUIPO — Iviton (TON JONES) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark TON JONES — Earlier national and international figurative marks Jones — Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 10 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) | 54 |
| 2019/C 399/67 | Case T-634/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Geske v EUIPO (revolutionary air pulse technology) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark revolutionary air pulse technology — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 55 |
| 2019/C 399/68 | Case T-678/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Società agricola Giusti Dal Col v EUIPO — DMC (GIUSTI WINE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Application for protection of the international word mark GIUSTI WINE — Earlier national figurative mark DeGIUSTI - Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 56 |
| 2019/C 399/69 | Case T-679/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Showroom v EUIPO — E-Gab (SHOWROOM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark SHOWROOM — Earlier EU figurative mark SHOWROOM86 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 56 |
| 2019/C 399/70 | Case T-761/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — La Caixa v EUIPO — Imagic Vision (imagin bank) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark imagin bank — Earlier national figurative mark imagic — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 57 |
| 2019/C 399/71 | Case T-34/19: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Orkla Foods Danmark v EUIPO (PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 58 |
| 2019/C 399/72 | Case T-231/15 RENV: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Haswani v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Modification of the application — Admissibility — Need to modify pleas in law and arguments — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any foundation in law) | 59 |
| 2019/C 399/73 | Case T-593/18: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2019 — BS v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Notice of modification of pension entitlements — Dependent child allowance — Education allowance — Child suffering from an infirmity preventing him from earning a livelihood — Actual maintenance of the child — Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Recovery of overpayments — Right to good administration — Action for annulment) | 60 |
| 2019/C 399/74 | Case T-617/18: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2019 — ZH v ECHA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — 2016 staff report — Sick leave — Claim for compensation — Complaint brought after expiry of the three-month period prescribed by Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Force majeure — Excusable error — Manifest inadmissibility) | 60 |
| 2019/C 399/75 | Case T-649/18: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — ruwido austria v EUIPO (transparent pairing) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark transparent pairing — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 61 |
| 2019/C 399/76 | Case T-703/18: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2019 — Poland v Commission (Action for annulment — European Social Fund — Operational programme Knowledge Education Development — Letter notifying a final audit report — Act not amenable to review — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility) | 62 |
| 2019/C 399/77 | Case T-55/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Cham Holding and Bena Properties v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence) | 62 |
| 2019/C 399/78 | Case T-56/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence) | 63 |
| 2019/C 399/79 | Case T-57/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Makhlouf v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence) | 64 |
| 2019/C 399/80 | Case T-58/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Othman v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence) | 65 |
| 2019/C 399/81 | Case T-59/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Makhlouf v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence) | 65 |
| 2019/C 399/82 | Case T-61/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence) | 66 |
| 2019/C 399/83 | Case T-62/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence) | 67 |
| 2019/C 399/84 | Case T-70/19: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO (LA PASSIATA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 67 |
| 2019/C 399/85 | Case T-137/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Souruh v Council (Action for damages — Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of jurisdiction) | 68 |
| 2019/C 399/86 | Case T-142/19: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (PASSIATA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 69 |
| 2019/C 399/87 | Case T-182/19: Order of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Puma v EUIPO (SOFTFOAM) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark SOFTFOAM — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 69 |
| 2019/C 399/88 | Case T-547/19: Action brought on 31 July 2019 — Sarantos and Others v Parliament and Commission | 70 |
| 2019/C 399/89 | Case T-609/19: Action brought on 9 September 2019 – Canon v Commission | 71 |
| 2019/C 399/90 | Case T-612/19: Action brought on 10 September 2019 – UPL Europe and Aceto Agricultural Chemical v Commission | 72 |
| 2019/C 399/91 | Case T-619/19: Action brought on 17 September 2019 – KF v SatCen | 73 |
| 2019/C 399/92 | Case T-620/19: Action brought on 16 September 2019 – Ace of spades v EUIPO – Krupp and Borrmann (Shape of Champagne rosé bottle) | 74 |
| 2019/C 399/93 | Case T-621/19: Action brought on 16 September 2019 – Ace of spades v EUIPO – Krupp and Borrmann (Shape of Champagne Grande reserve bottle) | 75 |
| 2019/C 399/94 | Case T-622/19: Action brought on 16 September 2019 – Ace of spades v EUIPO – Krupp and Borrmann (Shape of Champagne prestige bottle) | 76 |
| 2019/C 399/95 | Case T-624/19: Action brought on 17 September 2019 — Welter’s v EUIPO (Shape of a handgrip with bristles) | 77 |
| 2019/C 399/96 | Case T-629/19: Action brought on 20 September 2019 — L. Oliva Torras v EUIPO — Mecánica del Frío (Vehicle couplings) | 77 |
| 2019/C 399/97 | Case T-634/19: Action brought on 19 September 2019 — FC v EASO | 79 |
| 2019/C 399/98 | Case T-636/19: Action brought on 24 September 2019 – Chemours Netherlands v ECHA | 80 |
| 2019/C 399/99 | Case T-637/19: Action brought on 25 September 2019 – Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO – Carpathian Springs (Shape of a bottle) | 81 |
| 2019/C 399/100 | Case T-638/19: Action brought on 25 September 2019 – Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO – Valvis Holding (Shape of a bottle) | 82 |
| 2019/C 399/101 | Case T-645/19: Action brought on 26 September 2019 — IMG v Commission | 83 |
| 2019/C 399/102 | Case T-651/19: Action brought on 26 September 2019 — Brands Up v EUIPO (Credit24) | 83 |
| 2019/C 399/103 | Case T-652/19: Action brought on 26 September 2019 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission | 84 |
| 2019/C 399/104 | Case T-653/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 — FF v Commission | 85 |
| 2019/C 399/105 | Case T-654/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 — FF v Commission | 86 |
| 2019/C 399/106 | Case T-655/19: Action brought on 27 September 2019 — Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission | 87 |
| 2019/C 399/107 | Case T-656/19: Action brought on 27 September 2019 — Alfa Acciai v Commission | 88 |
| 2019/C 399/108 | Case T-657/19: Action brought on 28 September 2019 — Feralpi v Commission | 89 |
| 2019/C 399/109 | Case T-660/19: Action brought on 25 September 2019 — Universität Bremen v Commission and REA | 90 |
| 2019/C 399/110 | Case T-665/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$) | 91 |
| 2019/C 399/111 | Case T-667/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 — Ferriere Nord v Commission | 91 |
| 2019/C 399/112 | Case T-668/19: Action brought on 1 October 2019 — Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings v EUIPO (sound mark) | 93 |
| 2019/C 399/113 | Case T-669/19: Action brought on 2 October 2019 – Novomatic v EUIPO – Brouwerij Haacht (PRIMUS) | 94 |
| 2019/C 399/114 | Case T-670/19: Action brought on 1 October 2019 — FG v Parliament | 95 |
| 2019/C 399/115 | Case T-672/19: Action brought on 2 October 2019 — Companhia de Seguros Índico v Commission | 97 |
| 2019/C 399/116 | Case T-677/19: Action brought on 2 October 2019 – Polfarmex v EUIPO – Kaminski (SYRENA) | 98 |
| 2019/C 399/117 | Case T-678/19: Action brought on 4 October 2019 – Health Product Group v EUIPO – Bioline Pharmaceutical (Enterosgel) | 99 |
| 2019/C 399/118 | Case T-679/19: Action brought on 4 October 2019 — Argyraki v Commission | 100 |
| 2019/C 399/119 | Case T-686/19: Action brought on 7 October 2019 – Euroapotheca v EUIPO – General Nutrition Investment (GNC LIVE WELL) | 100 |
| 2019/C 399/120 | Case T-687/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – inMusic Brands v EUIPO – Equipson (Marq) | 101 |
| 2019/C 399/121 | Case T-694/19: Action brought on 9 October 2019 — FI v Commission | 102 |
| 2019/C 399/122 | Case T-19/17: Order of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Fastweb v Commission | 103 |
| 2019/C 399/123 | Case T-250/18: Order of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — RATP v Commission | 103 |
| 2019/C 399/124 | Case T-306/18: Order of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Hungary v Commission | 104 |
| 2019/C 399/125 | Case T-19/19: Order of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Fastweb v Commission | 104 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2019/C 399/02

Case C-136/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — GC, AF, BH, ED v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Personal data — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data contained on websites — Directive 95/46/EC — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Search engines on the internet — Processing of data appearing on websites — Special categories of data referred to in Article 8 of Directive 95/46 and Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation 2016/679 — Applicability of those articles to operators of a search engine — Extent of that operator’s obligations with respect to those articles — Publication of data on websites solely for journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression — Effect on the handling of a request for de-referencing — Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

2

2019/C 399/03

Case C-507/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Personal data — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of such data — Directive 95/46/EC — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Internet search engines — Processing of data on web pages — Territorial scope of the right to de-referencing)

3

2019/C 399/04

Case C-526/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Directive 2004/18/EC — Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Public works concession contracts — Extension of the duration of an existing concession for the construction and operation of a motorway, without publication of a contract notice)

4

2019/C 399/05

Case C-700/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Kyritz v Wolf-Henning Peters (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(b) and (c) — Exemptions — Hospital and medical care — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — No confidential relationship between the person providing the care and the patient)

5

2019/C 399/06

Case C-11/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 September 2019 — Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds and economic resources — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the appellant’s name — Decision by an authority of a third State — Council’s obligation to verify that that decision was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to state reasons)

6

2019/C 399/07

Case C-32/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse v Michael Moser (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 60 — Family benefits — Right to payment of the difference between the parental allowance paid in the Member State having primary competence and the childcare allowance provided by the Member State having secondary competence)

7

2019/C 399/08

Case C-34/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Ottília Lovasné Tóth v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 3(1) and (3) — Annex to Directive 93/13/EEC — Point 1(m) and (q) — Loan agreement secured by a mortgage — Notarial instrument — Affixation of the enforcement clause by a notary — Reversal of the burden of proof — Article 5(1) — Plain and intelligible drafting)

8

2019/C 399/09

Case C-47/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Skarb Pánstwa Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej — Generalny Dyrektor Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v Stephan Riel, acting as liquidator of Alpine Bau GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Scope — Article 1(2)(b) — Bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings — Not included — Action for a declaration that a claim exists for the purposes of its registration in insolvency proceedings — Application of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 41 — Content of the lodgement of a claim — Main and secondary insolvency proceedings — Lis pendens and related actions — Application by analogy of Article 29(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 — Inadmissibility)

9

2019/C 399/10

Case C-63/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Vitali SpA v Autostrade per l’Italia SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 71 — Subcontracting — National legislation limiting the possibility of subcontracting to 30 % of the total amount of the contract)

10

2019/C 399/11

Joined Cases C-95/18 and C 96/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — the Netherlands) — Sociale Verzekeringsbank v F. van den Berg (C-95/18), H.D. Giesen (C-95/18), C.E. Franzen (C-96/18) (References for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 13 — Applicable law — Resident of a Member State falling within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Allowances under the old-age pension or child benefit schemes — Member State of residence and Member State of employment — Refusal)

10

2019/C 399/12

Case C-222/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — VIPA Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cross-border healthcare — Directive 2011/24/EU — Articles 3(k) and 11(1) — Prescription — Definition — Recognition of a prescription issued in another Member State by an authorised person — Conditions — Free movement of goods — Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports — Articles 35 and 36 TFEU — Restriction on the dispensing by a pharmacy of prescription-only medicinal products — Order form issued in another Member State — Justification — Protection of human health and human life — Directive 2001/83/EC — Second paragraph of Article 81 — Supply of medicinal products to the public of a Member State)

11

2019/C 399/13

Case C-251/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Trace Sport v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commercial policy — Anti-dumping duties — Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia — Extension to those countries of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 — Validity — Admissibility — No action for annulment brought by the applicant in the main proceedings — Associated importer — Standing to bring an action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 13 — Circumvention — Article 18 — Non-cooperation — Proof — Body of evidence)

12

2019/C 399/14

Case C-358/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 — Republic of Poland v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland — Producer group — Producer organisation)

13

2019/C 399/15

Joined Cases C-366/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid — Spain) — José Manuel Ortiz Mesonero v UTE Luz Madrid Centro (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2010/18/EU — Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave — National legislation making the granting of parental leave conditional on a reduction in working time, with a proportional reduction in pay — Shift work with variable hours — Request of the worker to perform his work at a fixed schedule to care for his minor children — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in employment and occupation — Indirect discrimination — Partial inadmissibility)

14

2019/C 399/16

Case C-467/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Lukovit — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against EP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Articles 6, 47 and Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2012/13/EU — Article 8(2) — Directive 2013/48/EU — Article 12 — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Article 3 — National legislation authorising, on therapeutic and safety grounds, the committal to a psychiatric hospital of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society — Right to information about rights — Right of access to a lawyer — Right to an effective remedy — Presumption of innocence — Vulnerable persons)

14

2019/C 399/17

Case C-527/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Gesamtverband Autoteile-Handel eV v KIA Motors Corporation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Motor vehicles — Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 — First sentence of Article 6(1) — Vehicle repair and maintenance information — Manufacturers’ obligations towards independent operators — Unrestricted access to that information in a standardised format — Procedures — Prohibition of discrimination)

15

2019/C 399/18

Case C-544/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal — United Kingdom) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Henrika Dakneviciute (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Self-employment — National of a Member State who ceases to be self-employed because of the physical constraints in the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth — Retention of self-employed status)

16

2019/C 399/19

Case C-556/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 September 2019 — Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — European Union water policy — Directive 2000/60/EC — Article 13(1) and (7) and Article 15(1) — Failure to adopt, publish and communicate to the European Commission revised and updated river basin management plans for Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and El Hierro (Spain) — Article 14 — Failure to inform and consult the public relating to the revision and the updating)

17

2019/C 399/20

Case C-600/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — UTEP 2006. SRL v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Hatósági Főosztály, Hatósági, Építésügyi és Oktatási Osztály (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Road transport — Articles 91 and 92 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 — Article 32(3), Article 33(1) and Article 41(1) — Infringement of the rules on the use of tachographs — Duty of Member States to make provision for effective, dissuasive and non-discriminatory penalties — Resident and non-resident small and medium-sized enterprises — Differential treatment)

18

2019/C 399/21

Joined Cases C-662/18 and C-672/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — AQ (C-662/18), DN (C-672/18) v Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publics (References for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Directive 90/434/EEC — Directive 2009/133/EC — Article 8 — Capital gains relating to exchange of securities transactions — Transfer of securities received at the time of the exchange — Capital gain on which tax has been deferred — Taxation of the shareholders — Taxation on the basis of different bases of assessment and rate rules — Reductions of the basis of assessment taking into account the period for which securities have been held)

18

2019/C 399/22

Case C-728/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2018 by EM Research Organization, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2018 in Case T-180/17: EM Research Organization v EUIPO - Christoph Fischer e.a

19

2019/C 399/23

Case C-293/19 P: Appeal brought on 10 April 2019 by Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2019 in Case T-231/18: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO - Lupu (Djili)

20

2019/C 399/24

Case C- 351/19 P: Appeal brought on 30 April 2019 by Bruno Gollnisch against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2019 in Case T-375/18, Gollnisch v Parliament

20

2019/C 399/25

Case C-545/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 17 July 2019 — ALLIANZGI-FONDS AEVN v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

20

2019/C 399/26

Case C-617/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2019 — Granarolo S.p.A. v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others

22

2019/C 399/27

Case C-629/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 23 August 2019 — Sappi Austria Produktions-GmbH & Co KG and Wasserverband Region Gratkorn-Gratwein

23

2019/C 399/28

Case C-632/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie v Metalen Galler NV, KGH Belgium NV, LW-Idee GmbH

23

2019/C 399/29

Case C-633/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie v Metalen Galler NV, Vollers Belgium NV, LW-Idee GmbH

25

2019/C 399/30

Case C-640/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 28 August 2019 — Azienda Agricola Ambrosi Nicola Giuseppe and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali

26

2019/C 399/31

Case C-643/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 30 August 2019 — RESOPRE — Sociedade Revendedora de Aparelhos de Precisão SA v Município de Peso da Régua

27

2019/C 399/32

Case C-648/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2019 — EUflight.de GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

28

2019/C 399/33

Case C-652/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 2 September 2019 — KO v Fallimento Consulmarketing SpA

29

2019/C 399/34

Case C-653/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 September 2019 — Criminal proceedings against DK

29

2019/C 399/35

Case C-662/19 P: Appeal brought on 4 September 2019 by NRW.Bank against the judgment delivered on 26 June 2019 in Case T-466/16 NRW.Bank v SRB

30

2019/C 399/36

Case C-663/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Gera (Germany) lodged on 6 September 2019 — MM v Volkswagen AG

31

2019/C 399/37

Case C-686/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 18 September 2019 — Soho Group SIA v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

32

2019/C 399/38

Case C-687/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 18 September 2019 — Ryanair Ltd v PJ

33

2019/C 399/39

Case C-710/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 25 September 2019 — G.M.A. v Belgian State

33

2019/C 399/40

Case C-730/19: Action brought on 3 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

34

2019/C 399/41

Case C-743/19: Action brought on 9 October 2019 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

35

2019/C 399/42

Case C-744/19: Action brought on 10 October 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic

36

General Court

2019/C 399/43

Joined Cases T-119/07 and T-207/07: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Italia and Eurallumina v Commission (State aid — Directive 2003/96/EC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise duty — Selective nature — Guidelines on national regional aid — Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection of 2001 — Legitimate expectations — Presumption of legality attaching to measures of the institutions — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons — Contradictory reasoning)

37

2019/C 399/44

Joined Cases T-129/07 and T-130/07: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Ireland and Aughinish Alumina v Commission (State aid — Directive 2003/96/EC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise duty — Selective nature of the measure — Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection of 2001)

38

2019/C 399/45

Case T-386/14 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — FIH Holding and FIH v Commission (State aid — Banking sector — Aid granted to FIH in the form of a transfer of its impaired assets to a new subsidiary and the subsequent purchase thereof by the body responsible for guaranteeing financial stability — State aid for banks during the crisis — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Admissibility — Calculation of the amount of the aid — Manifest error of assessment)

39

2019/C 399/46

Case T-417/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Achemos Grupė and Achema v Commission (State aid — Aid to Klaipėdos Nafta for the construction and management of an LNG terminal at the Klaipėda Seaport — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Article 106(2) TFEU — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Decision not to raise any objections — Security of supply — Service of general economic interest)

39

2019/C 399/47

Case T-153/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — FV v Council (Civil service — Officials — Staff reports — 2014 and 2015 appraisal exercises — Interest in bringing proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

40

2019/C 399/48

Case T-176/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — WhiteWave Services v EUIPO — Fernandes (VeGa one) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark VeGa one — International registration designating the European Union in respect of the earlier word mark Vegas — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

41

2019/C 399/49

Case T-228/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings, whether or not finished, originating in China and Taiwan — Imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties — Normal value — Adjustments — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons)

42

2019/C 399/50

Case T-433/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union (Access to documents — Court of Justice of the European Union — Documents held by an institution in the exercise of its administrative functions — Application for access submitted by a former judge of the General Court — Partial refusal of access — Non-contractual liability of the European Union)

42

2019/C 399/51

Case T-476/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance diflubenzuron — Review of approval — Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Rights of the defence — Ultra vires — Manifest error of assessment — Procedure for renewal of approval — Article 14 of Regulation No 1107/2009 — Imposition, in the context of the review procedure, of additional restrictions limiting the use of the active substance at issue without waiting for the outcome of the renewal procedure — Proportionality)

43

2019/C 399/52

Case T-629/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission (ERDF — ESF — Reduction in financial assistance — Public procurement — Article 99(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC — Specific exclusion — Public service contracts for the acquisition, development, production or co-production of programme material intended for broadcasting by broadcasters)

44

2019/C 399/53

Case T-786/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — BTC v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement entered into in the context of the eTEN framework programme, relating to trans-European telecommunications networks — SafeChemo project — Investigation report from OLAF finding certain expenses incurred to be ineligible — Repayment in part of the sums paid — Counterclaim)

45

2019/C 399/54

Case T-27/18 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — FV v Council (Civil service — Officials — Staff report — 2013 appraisal exercise — Interest in bringing proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

45

2019/C 399/55

Case T-65/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Venezuela v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela — Action brought by a third State — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

46

2019/C 399/56

Case T-225/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Manéa v CdT (Civil service — Temporary members of staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew the applicant’s contract — Withdrawal of the decision and adoption of a new decision refusing renewal with effect from the date of the first decision — Liability)

47

2019/C 399/57

Case T-286/18: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Azarov v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

48

2019/C 399/58

Case T-359/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Unifarco v EUIPO — GD Tecnologie Interdisciplinari Farmaceutiche (TRICOPID) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark TRICOPID — Earlier national figurative mark TRICODIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

49

2019/C 399/59

Case T-379/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — WI v Commission (Civil service — Pensions — Survivor’s pension — Registered non-marital partnership — Refusal to grant — Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulation — Access to civil marriage — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Exceptional Circumstances)

49

2019/C 399/60

Case T-399/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — TrekStor v EUIPO (Theatre) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Theatre — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

50

2019/C 399/61

Case T-464/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO — Rubio Snacks (Tia Rosa) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Tia Rosa — Earlier national figurative mark TIA ROSA — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

51

2019/C 399/62

Case T-502/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — IRF (MediWell) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MediWell — Earlier national word mark WELL AND WELL and earlier national figurative mark well & well LES PHARMACIENS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

51

2019/C 399/63

Case T-528/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — XI v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Occupational disease — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Reply to the complaint containing medical data — Medical confidentiality — Request for deletion of that data — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Right to privacy — Liability)

52

2019/C 399/64

Case T-532/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Aroma Essence v EUIPO — Refan Bulgaria (washing sponge) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a washing sponge — Earlier designs — Grounds for invalidity — Examination by the Board of Appeal of its own motion of the facts constituting disclosure — Burden of proof on the invalidity applicant — Requirements relating to the reproduction of the prior design)

53

2019/C 399/65

Case T-545/18: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — YL v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2017 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 7 with effect from 1 January 2017 — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Article 9(3) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Misuse of powers — Disciplinary measure)

54

2019/C 399/66

Case T-633/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Rose Gesellschaft v EUIPO — Iviton (TON JONES) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark TON JONES — Earlier national and international figurative marks Jones — Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 10 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

54

2019/C 399/67

Case T-634/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Geske v EUIPO (revolutionary air pulse technology) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark revolutionary air pulse technology — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

55

2019/C 399/68

Case T-678/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Società agricola Giusti Dal Col v EUIPO — DMC (GIUSTI WINE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Application for protection of the international word mark GIUSTI WINE — Earlier national figurative mark DeGIUSTI - Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

56

2019/C 399/69

Case T-679/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Showroom v EUIPO — E-Gab (SHOWROOM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark SHOWROOM — Earlier EU figurative mark SHOWROOM86 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

56

2019/C 399/70

Case T-761/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — La Caixa v EUIPO — Imagic Vision (imagin bank) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark imagin bank — Earlier national figurative mark imagic — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

57

2019/C 399/71

Case T-34/19: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Orkla Foods Danmark v EUIPO (PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

58

2019/C 399/72

Case T-231/15 RENV: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Haswani v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Modification of the application — Admissibility — Need to modify pleas in law and arguments — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any foundation in law)

59

2019/C 399/73

Case T-593/18: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2019 — BS v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Notice of modification of pension entitlements — Dependent child allowance — Education allowance — Child suffering from an infirmity preventing him from earning a livelihood — Actual maintenance of the child — Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Recovery of overpayments — Right to good administration — Action for annulment)

60

2019/C 399/74

Case T-617/18: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2019 — ZH v ECHA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — 2016 staff report — Sick leave — Claim for compensation — Complaint brought after expiry of the three-month period prescribed by Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Force majeure — Excusable error — Manifest inadmissibility)

60

2019/C 399/75

Case T-649/18: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — ruwido austria v EUIPO (transparent pairing) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark transparent pairing — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

61

2019/C 399/76

Case T-703/18: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2019 — Poland v Commission (Action for annulment — European Social Fund — Operational programme Knowledge Education Development — Letter notifying a final audit report — Act not amenable to review — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

62

2019/C 399/77

Case T-55/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Cham Holding and Bena Properties v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

62

2019/C 399/78

Case T-56/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

63

2019/C 399/79

Case T-57/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Makhlouf v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

64

2019/C 399/80

Case T-58/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Othman v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

65

2019/C 399/81

Case T-59/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Makhlouf v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

65

2019/C 399/82

Case T-61/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

66

2019/C 399/83

Case T-62/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

67

2019/C 399/84

Case T-70/19: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO (LA PASSIATA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

67

2019/C 399/85

Case T-137/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Souruh v Council (Action for damages — Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of jurisdiction)

68

2019/C 399/86

Case T-142/19: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (PASSIATA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

69

2019/C 399/87

Case T-182/19: Order of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Puma v EUIPO (SOFTFOAM) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark SOFTFOAM — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

69

2019/C 399/88

Case T-547/19: Action brought on 31 July 2019 — Sarantos and Others v Parliament and Commission

70

2019/C 399/89

Case T-609/19: Action brought on 9 September 2019 – Canon v Commission

71

2019/C 399/90

Case T-612/19: Action brought on 10 September 2019 – UPL Europe and Aceto Agricultural Chemical v Commission

72

2019/C 399/91

Case T-619/19: Action brought on 17 September 2019 – KF v SatCen

73

2019/C 399/92

Case T-620/19: Action brought on 16 September 2019 – Ace of spades v EUIPO – Krupp and Borrmann (Shape of Champagne rosé bottle)

74

2019/C 399/93

Case T-621/19: Action brought on 16 September 2019 – Ace of spades v EUIPO – Krupp and Borrmann (Shape of Champagne Grande reserve bottle)

75

2019/C 399/94

Case T-622/19: Action brought on 16 September 2019 – Ace of spades v EUIPO – Krupp and Borrmann (Shape of Champagne prestige bottle)

76

2019/C 399/95

Case T-624/19: Action brought on 17 September 2019 — Welter’s v EUIPO (Shape of a handgrip with bristles)

77

2019/C 399/96

Case T-629/19: Action brought on 20 September 2019 — L. Oliva Torras v EUIPO — Mecánica del Frío (Vehicle couplings)

77

2019/C 399/97

Case T-634/19: Action brought on 19 September 2019 — FC v EASO

79

2019/C 399/98

Case T-636/19: Action brought on 24 September 2019 – Chemours Netherlands v ECHA

80

2019/C 399/99

Case T-637/19: Action brought on 25 September 2019 – Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO – Carpathian Springs (Shape of a bottle)

81

2019/C 399/100

Case T-638/19: Action brought on 25 September 2019 – Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO – Valvis Holding (Shape of a bottle)

82

2019/C 399/101

Case T-645/19: Action brought on 26 September 2019 — IMG v Commission

83

2019/C 399/102

Case T-651/19: Action brought on 26 September 2019 — Brands Up v EUIPO (Credit24)

83

2019/C 399/103

Case T-652/19: Action brought on 26 September 2019 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission

84

2019/C 399/104

Case T-653/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 — FF v Commission

85

2019/C 399/105

Case T-654/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 — FF v Commission

86

2019/C 399/106

Case T-655/19: Action brought on 27 September 2019 — Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission

87

2019/C 399/107

Case T-656/19: Action brought on 27 September 2019 — Alfa Acciai v Commission

88

2019/C 399/108

Case T-657/19: Action brought on 28 September 2019 — Feralpi v Commission

89

2019/C 399/109

Case T-660/19: Action brought on 25 September 2019 — Universität Bremen v Commission and REA

90

2019/C 399/110

Case T-665/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$)

91

2019/C 399/111

Case T-667/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 — Ferriere Nord v Commission

91

2019/C 399/112

Case T-668/19: Action brought on 1 October 2019 — Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings v EUIPO (sound mark)

93

2019/C 399/113

Case T-669/19: Action brought on 2 October 2019 – Novomatic v EUIPO – Brouwerij Haacht (PRIMUS)

94

2019/C 399/114

Case T-670/19: Action brought on 1 October 2019 — FG v Parliament

95

2019/C 399/115

Case T-672/19: Action brought on 2 October 2019 — Companhia de Seguros Índico v Commission

97

2019/C 399/116

Case T-677/19: Action brought on 2 October 2019 – Polfarmex v EUIPO – Kaminski (SYRENA)

98

2019/C 399/117

Case T-678/19: Action brought on 4 October 2019 – Health Product Group v EUIPO – Bioline Pharmaceutical (Enterosgel)

99

2019/C 399/118

Case T-679/19: Action brought on 4 October 2019 — Argyraki v Commission

100

2019/C 399/119

Case T-686/19: Action brought on 7 October 2019 – Euroapotheca v EUIPO – General Nutrition Investment (GNC LIVE WELL)

100

2019/C 399/120

Case T-687/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – inMusic Brands v EUIPO – Equipson (Marq)

101

2019/C 399/121

Case T-694/19: Action brought on 9 October 2019 — FI v Commission

102

2019/C 399/122

Case T-19/17: Order of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Fastweb v Commission

103

2019/C 399/123

Case T-250/18: Order of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — RATP v Commission

103

2019/C 399/124

Case T-306/18: Order of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Hungary v Commission

104

2019/C 399/125

Case T-19/19: Order of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Fastweb v Commission

104

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/1

---

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

(2019/C 399/01)

Last publication

OJ C 383, 11.11.2019

Past publications

OJ C 372, 4.11.2019

OJ C 363, 28.10.2019

OJ C 357, 21.10.2019

OJ C 348, 14.10.2019

OJ C 337, 7.10.2019

OJ C 328, 30.9.2019

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — GC, AF, BH, ED v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

(Case C-136/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Personal data - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data contained on websites - Directive 95/46/EC - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Search engines on the internet - Processing of data appearing on websites - Special categories of data referred to in Article 8 of Directive 95/46 and Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation 2016/679 - Applicability of those articles to operators of a search engine - Extent of that operator’s obligations with respect to those articles - Publication of data on websites solely for journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression - Effect on the handling of a request for de-referencing - Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2019/C 399/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: GC, AF, BH, ED

Defendant: Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

Interveners: Premier ministre, Google LLC, successor to Google Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The provisions of Article 8(1) and (5) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition or restrictions relating to the processing of special categories of personal data, mentioned in those provisions, apply also, subject to the exceptions provided for by the directive, to the operator of a search engine in the context of his responsibilities, powers and capabilities as the controller of the processing carried out in connection with the activity of the search engine, on the occasion of a verification performed by that operator, under the supervision of the competent national authorities, following a request by the data subject. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The provisions of Article 8(1) and (5) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition or restrictions relating to the processing of special categories of personal data, mentioned in those provisions, apply also, subject to the exceptions provided for by the directive, to the operator of a search engine in the context of his responsibilities, powers and capabilities as the controller of the processing carried out in connection with the activity of the search engine, on the occasion of a verification performed by that operator, under the supervision of the competent national authorities, following a request by the data subject.

| 2. | The provisions of Article 8(1) and (5) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of a search engine is in principle required by those provisions, subject to the exceptions provided for by the directive, to accede to requests for de-referencing in relation to links to web pages containing personal data falling within the special categories referred to by those provisions.
  Article 8(2)(e) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that, pursuant to that article, such an operator may refuse to accede to a request for de-referencing if he establishes that the links at issue lead to content comprising personal data falling within the special categories referred to in Article 8(1) but whose processing is covered by the exception in Article 8(2)(e) of the directive, provided that the processing satisfies all the other conditions of lawfulness laid down by the directive, and unless the data subject has the right under Article 14(a) of the directive to object to that processing on compelling legitimate grounds relating to his particular situation.
  The provisions of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the operator of a search engine has received a request for de-referencing relating to a link to a web page on which personal data falling within the special categories referred to in Article 8(1) or (5) of Directive 95/46 are published, the operator must, on the basis of all the relevant factors of the particular case and taking into account the seriousness of the interference with the data subject’s fundamental rights to privacy and protection of personal data laid down in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ascertain, having regard to the reasons of substantial public interest referred to in Article 8(4) of the directive and in compliance with the conditions laid down in that provision, whether the inclusion of that link in the list of results displayed following a search on the basis of the data subject’s name is strictly necessary for protecting the freedom of information of internet users potentially interested in accessing that web page by means of such a search, protected by Article 11 of the Charter; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The provisions of Article 8(1) and (5) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of a search engine is in principle required by those provisions, subject to the exceptions provided for by the directive, to accede to requests for de-referencing in relation to links to web pages containing personal data falling within the special categories referred to by those provisions.

Article 8(2)(e) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that, pursuant to that article, such an operator may refuse to accede to a request for de-referencing if he establishes that the links at issue lead to content comprising personal data falling within the special categories referred to in Article 8(1) but whose processing is covered by the exception in Article 8(2)(e) of the directive, provided that the processing satisfies all the other conditions of lawfulness laid down by the directive, and unless the data subject has the right under Article 14(a) of the directive to object to that processing on compelling legitimate grounds relating to his particular situation.

The provisions of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the operator of a search engine has received a request for de-referencing relating to a link to a web page on which personal data falling within the special categories referred to in Article 8(1) or (5) of Directive 95/46 are published, the operator must, on the basis of all the relevant factors of the particular case and taking into account the seriousness of the interference with the data subject’s fundamental rights to privacy and protection of personal data laid down in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ascertain, having regard to the reasons of substantial public interest referred to in Article 8(4) of the directive and in compliance with the conditions laid down in that provision, whether the inclusion of that link in the list of results displayed following a search on the basis of the data subject’s name is strictly necessary for protecting the freedom of information of internet users potentially interested in accessing that web page by means of such a search, protected by Article 11 of the Charter;

| 3. | The provisions of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that






  — | first, information relating to legal proceedings brought against an individual and, as the case may be, information relating to an ensuing conviction are data relating to ‘offences’ and ‘criminal convictions’ within the meaning of Article 8(5) of Directive 95/46, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The provisions of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that

—

first, information relating to legal proceedings brought against an individual and, as the case may be, information relating to an ensuing conviction are data relating to ‘offences’ and ‘criminal convictions’ within the meaning of Article 8(5) of Directive 95/46, and

| — | second, the operator of a search engine is required to accede to a request for de-referencing relating to links to web pages displaying such information, where the information relates to an earlier stage of the legal proceedings in question and, having regard to the progress of the proceedings, no longer corresponds to the current situation, in so far as it is established in the verification of the reasons of substantial public interest referred to in Article 8(4) of Directive 95/46 that, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, the data subject’s fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union override the rights of potentially interested internet users protected by Article 11 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

—

second, the operator of a search engine is required to accede to a request for de-referencing relating to links to web pages displaying such information, where the information relates to an earlier stage of the legal proceedings in question and, having regard to the progress of the proceedings, no longer corresponds to the current situation, in so far as it is established in the verification of the reasons of substantial public interest referred to in Article 8(4) of Directive 95/46 that, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, the data subject’s fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union override the rights of potentially interested internet users protected by Article 11 of the Charter.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

(Case C-507/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Personal data - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of such data - Directive 95/46/EC - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Internet search engines - Processing of data on web pages - Territorial scope of the right to de-referencing)

(2019/C 399/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc.

Defendant: Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

In the presence of: Wikimedia Foundation Inc., Fondation pour la liberté de la presse, Microsoft Corp., Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Others, Article 19 and Others, Internet Freedom Foundation and Others, and Défenseur des droits

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and of Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46 (General Data Protection Regulation), where a search engine operator grants a request for de-referencing pursuant to those provisions, that operator is not required to carry out that de-referencing on all versions of its search engine, but on the versions of that search engine corresponding to all the Member States, using, where necessary, measures which, while meeting the legal requirements, effectively prevent or, at the very least, seriously discourage an internet user conducting a search from one of the Member States on the basis of a data subject’s name from gaining access, via the list of results displayed following that search, to the links which are the subject of that request.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-526/17) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Directive 2004/18/EC - Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Public works concession contracts - Extension of the duration of an existing concession for the construction and operation of a motorway, without publication of a contract notice)

(2019/C 399/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, P. Ondrůšek and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and V. Nunziata, E. De Bonis and P. Pucciariello, avvocati dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by extending the concession for the section of the A12 Livorno-Civitavecchia motorway from Livorno to Cecina (Italy) from 31 October 2028 to 31 December 2046, without publishing a contract notice, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 58 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1422/2007 of 4 December 2007; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by extending the concession for the section of the A12 Livorno-Civitavecchia motorway from Livorno to Cecina (Italy) from 31 October 2028 to 31 December 2046, without publishing a contract notice, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 58 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1422/2007 of 4 December 2007;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and three quarters of the costs of the Italian Republic. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear one quarter of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and three quarters of the costs of the Italian Republic. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear one quarter of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Kyritz v Wolf-Henning Peters

(Case C-700/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(b) and (c) - Exemptions - Hospital and medical care - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - No confidential relationship between the person providing the care and the patient)

(2019/C 399/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Finanzamt Kyritz

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Wolf-Henning Peters

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the provision of medical care such as that at issue in the main proceedings, supplied by a medical specialist in clinical chemistry and laboratory diagnostics, is capable of falling within the scope of the exemption from VAT under Article 132(1)(c) of that directive, where it fails to meet all the conditions for the application of the exemption under Article 132(1)(b) of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the provision of medical care such as that at issue in the main proceedings, supplied by a medical specialist in clinical chemistry and laboratory diagnostics, is capable of falling within the scope of the exemption from VAT under Article 132(1)(c) of that directive, where it fails to meet all the conditions for the application of the exemption under Article 132(1)(b) of the directive;

| 2. | Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT that it provides for is not subject to the condition that the medical care in question is supplied within the framework of a confidential relationship between the patient and the person providing the care. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT that it provides for is not subject to the condition that the medical care in question is supplied within the framework of a confidential relationship between the patient and the person providing the care.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 September 2019 — Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko v Council of the European Union

(Case C-11/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds and economic resources - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the appellant’s name - Decision by an authority of a third State - Council’s obligation to verify that that decision was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 399/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and J.-P. Hix, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 November 2017, Klymenko v Council (T-245/15, not published, EU:T:2017:792); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 November 2017, Klymenko v Council (T-245/15, not published, EU:T:2017:792);

| 2. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred both in the proceedings at first instance and in the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred both in the proceedings at first instance and in the present appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse v Michael Moser

(Case C-32/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 60 - Family benefits - Right to payment of the difference between the parental allowance paid in the Member State having primary competence and the childcare allowance provided by the Member State having secondary competence)

(2019/C 399/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

Defendant: Michael Moser

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The second sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation laid down in that provision to take into account, for the purposes of determining the scope of a person’s entitlement to family benefits, ‘the whole family ... as if all the persons involved were subject to the legislation of the Member State concerned’ applies both in the case where benefits are provided in accordance with the legislation designated as having priority under Article 68(1)(b)(i) 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, and in the case where benefits are payable in accordance with one or more other laws. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The second sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation laid down in that provision to take into account, for the purposes of determining the scope of a person’s entitlement to family benefits, ‘the whole family ... as if all the persons involved were subject to the legislation of the Member State concerned’ applies both in the case where benefits are provided in accordance with the legislation designated as having priority under Article 68(1)(b)(i) 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, and in the case where benefits are payable in accordance with one or more other laws.

| 2. | Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of the differential supplement to be granted to a worker under the legislation of a Member State having secondary competence in accordance with that article must be calculated by reference to the income actually earned by that worker in his Member State of employment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of the differential supplement to be granted to a worker under the legislation of a Member State having secondary competence in accordance with that article must be calculated by reference to the income actually earned by that worker in his Member State of employment.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Ottília Lovasné Tóth v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

(Case C-34/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 3(1) and (3) - Annex to Directive 93/13/EEC - Point 1(m) and (q) - Loan agreement secured by a mortgage - Notarial instrument - Affixation of the enforcement clause by a notary - Reversal of the burden of proof - Article 5(1) - Plain and intelligible drafting)

(2019/C 399/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ottília Lovasné Tóth

Defendant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(3) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in conjunction with point 1(q) of the Annex to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not qualify as unfair, in a general manner and without any further examination, a contractual term which has not been individually negotiated and which has the effect or object of reversing the burden of proof to the detriment of the consumer; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(3) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in conjunction with point 1(q) of the Annex to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not qualify as unfair, in a general manner and without any further examination, a contractual term which has not been individually negotiated and which has the effect or object of reversing the burden of proof to the detriment of the consumer;

| 2. | Article 3(3) of Directive 93/13, read in conjunction with point 1(q) of the Annex to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning, first, that it does not cover a term which has the object or effect of giving the consumer good reason to believe that he is required to fulfil all his contractual obligations, even though he considers that certain payments are not due, provided that that term does not alter the consumer’s legal position in view of the applicable national legislation and, secondly, that it covers a term which has the object or the effect of hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy where the outstanding amount is determined by a notarised instrument with probative force making it possible for the lender to put an end to the litigation unilaterally and definitively; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(3) of Directive 93/13, read in conjunction with point 1(q) of the Annex to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning, first, that it does not cover a term which has the object or effect of giving the consumer good reason to believe that he is required to fulfil all his contractual obligations, even though he considers that certain payments are not due, provided that that term does not alter the consumer’s legal position in view of the applicable national legislation and, secondly, that it covers a term which has the object or the effect of hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy where the outstanding amount is determined by a notarised instrument with probative force making it possible for the lender to put an end to the litigation unilaterally and definitively;

| 3. | Article 5 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the seller or supplier to provide additional information relating to a term which is drafted clearly, but the legal effects of which may be determined only by interpreting provisions of national law in respect of which there is no consistent case-law; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 5 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the seller or supplier to provide additional information relating to a term which is drafted clearly, but the legal effects of which may be determined only by interpreting provisions of national law in respect of which there is no consistent case-law;

| 4. | Article 3(3) of Directive 93/13, read in conjunction with point 1(m) of the Annex to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover a contractual term which authorises the seller or supplier to assess unilaterally whether the consumer’s obligations were performed in accordance with the contract. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 3(3) of Directive 93/13, read in conjunction with point 1(m) of the Annex to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover a contractual term which authorises the seller or supplier to assess unilaterally whether the consumer’s obligations were performed in accordance with the contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Skarb Pánstwa Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej — Generalny Dyrektor Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v Stephan Riel, acting as liquidator of Alpine Bau GmbH

(Case C-47/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Scope - Article 1(2)(b) - Bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings - Not included - Action for a declaration that a claim exists for the purposes of its registration in insolvency proceedings - Application of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 41 - Content of the lodgement of a claim - Main and secondary insolvency proceedings - Lis pendens and related actions - Application by analogy of Article 29(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 399/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skarb Pánstwa Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej — Generalny Dyrektor Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad

Defendant: Stephan Riel, acting as liquidator of Alpine Bau GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for a declaration of the existence of claims for the purposes of their registration in the context of insolvency proceedings, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is excluded from the scope of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for a declaration of the existence of claims for the purposes of their registration in the context of insolvency proceedings, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is excluded from the scope of that regulation.

| 2. | Article 29(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as not applying, even by analogy, to an action such as that in the main proceedings which is excluded from the scope of that regulation but falls within the scope of Regulation No 1346/2000. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 29(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as not applying, even by analogy, to an action such as that in the main proceedings which is excluded from the scope of that regulation but falls within the scope of Regulation No 1346/2000.

| 3. | Article 41 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the law applicable to contractual obligations must be interpreted as meaning that a creditor may, in the context of insolvency proceedings, lodge a claim without formally indicating the date on which it arose, where the law of the Member State within the territory of which those proceedings were opened does not impose an obligation to state that date and where that date may, without particular difficulty, be inferred from the supporting documents referred to in Article 41 of that regulation, which it is for the competent authority responsible for the verification of claims to determine. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 41 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the law applicable to contractual obligations must be interpreted as meaning that a creditor may, in the context of insolvency proceedings, lodge a claim without formally indicating the date on which it arose, where the law of the Member State within the territory of which those proceedings were opened does not impose an obligation to state that date and where that date may, without particular difficulty, be inferred from the supporting documents referred to in Article 41 of that regulation, which it is for the competent authority responsible for the verification of claims to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Vitali SpA v Autostrade per l’Italia SpA

(Case C-63/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 71 - Subcontracting - National legislation limiting the possibility of subcontracting to 30 % of the total amount of the contract)

(2019/C 399/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vitali SpA

Defendant: Autostrade per l’Italia SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2170 of 24 November 2015, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits to 30 % the share of the contract which the tenderer is permitted to subcontract to third parties.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — the Netherlands) — Sociale Verzekeringsbank v F. van den Berg (C-95/18), H.D. Giesen (C-95/18), C.E. Franzen (C-96/18)

(Joined Cases C-95/18 and C 96/18) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 13 - Applicable law - Resident of a Member State falling within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Allowances under the old-age pension or child benefit schemes - Member State of residence and Member State of employment - Refusal)

(2019/C 399/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sociale Verzekeringsbank

Defendants: F. van den Berg (C-95/18), H.D. Giesen (C-95/18), C.E. Franzen (C-96/18)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 45 and 48 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a law of a Member State under which a migrant worker residing in the territory of that Member State, who is subject to the social security legislation of the Member State of employment under Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, in its version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, is not insured for the purposes of the social security scheme of that Member State of residence, despite the fact that the legislation of the Member State of employment does not confer on that worker any entitlement to an old-age pension or child benefit; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 45 and 48 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a law of a Member State under which a migrant worker residing in the territory of that Member State, who is subject to the social security legislation of the Member State of employment under Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, in its version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, is not insured for the purposes of the social security scheme of that Member State of residence, despite the fact that the legislation of the Member State of employment does not confer on that worker any entitlement to an old-age pension or child benefit;

| 2. | Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, in its version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State on whose territory a migrant worker resides and which is not competent under that article, from making an entitlement to an old-age pension conditional on that migrant worker having insurance that entails payment of mandatory contributions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, in its version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State on whose territory a migrant worker resides and which is not competent under that article, from making an entitlement to an old-age pension conditional on that migrant worker having insurance that entails payment of mandatory contributions.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — VIPA Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet

(Case C-222/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Cross-border healthcare - Directive 2011/24/EU - Articles 3(k) and 11(1) - Prescription - Definition - Recognition of a prescription issued in another Member State by an authorised person - Conditions - Free movement of goods - Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports - Articles 35 and 36 TFEU - Restriction on the dispensing by a pharmacy of prescription-only medicinal products - Order form issued in another Member State - Justification - Protection of human health and human life - Directive 2001/83/EC - Second paragraph of Article 81 - Supply of medicinal products to the public of a Member State)

(2019/C 399/12)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VIPA Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft.

Defendant: Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(k) and Article 11(1) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which it is not permissible for a pharmacy in that Member State to dispense prescription-only medicinal products on the basis of an order form where that order form has been issued by a healthcare professional authorised to prescribe medicinal products and to exercise his activity in another Member State, whereas such dispensing of those products is permitted where that order form has been issued by a healthcare professional authorised to exercise his activity in the first Member State, bearing in mind that, under that legislation, such order forms do not contain the name of the patient concerned.

Articles 35 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such legislation of a Member State, in so far as that legislation is justified by the objective of protecting human health and human life, is appropriate for securing the attainment of that objective and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it, which is for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 221 25.06.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Trace Sport v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

(Case C-251/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Anti-dumping duties - Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia - Extension to those countries of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 - Validity - Admissibility - No action for annulment brought by the applicant in the main proceedings - Associated importer - Standing to bring an action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 13 - Circumvention - Article 18 - Non-cooperation - Proof - Body of evidence)

(2019/C 399/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trace Sport

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

Operative part of the judgment

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, is invalid in so far as it applies to imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in that country or not.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case C-358/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland - Producer group - Producer organisation)

(2019/C 399/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Other party: European Commission (represented by: D. Tryantafyllou, M. Kaduczak and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid — Spain) — José Manuel Ortiz Mesonero v UTE Luz Madrid Centro

(Joined Cases C-366/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2010/18/EU - Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave - National legislation making the granting of parental leave conditional on a reduction in working time, with a proportional reduction in pay - Shift work with variable hours - Request of the worker to perform his work at a fixed schedule to care for his minor children - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in employment and occupation - Indirect discrimination - Partial inadmissibility)

(2019/C 399/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant): José Manuel Ortiz Mesonero

Defendant: UTE Luz Madrid Centro

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a worker’s right, in order to take direct care of minors or dependent family members, to reduce his ordinary hours of work, with a proportional reduction in his salary, without being able, when his usual work system is in shifts with a variable schedule, to benefit from a fixed working schedule while maintaining his ordinary hours of work.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.08.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Lukovit — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against EP

(Case C-467/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Articles 6, 47 and Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2012/13/EU - Article 8(2) - Directive 2013/48/EU - Article 12 - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Article 3 - National legislation authorising, on therapeutic and safety grounds, the committal to a psychiatric hospital of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society - Right to information about rights - Right of access to a lawyer - Right to an effective remedy - Presumption of innocence - Vulnerable persons)

(2019/C 399/16)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Lukovit

Party to the main criminal proceedings

EP

Proceedings instituted at the request of: Rayonna prokuratura Lom, KM, HO

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, and Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, must be interpreted as applying to judicial proceedings, such as those provided for by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which authorise, on therapeutic and safety grounds, the committal to a psychiatric hospital of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society. Directive 2012/13 must be interpreted as meaning that persons suspected of having committed a criminal offence must be informed as soon as possible of their rights from the moment when they are subject to suspicions which justify, in circumstances other than an emergency, the restriction of their liberty by the competent authorities by means of coercive measures and, at the latest, before they are first officially questioned by the police. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, and Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, must be interpreted as applying to judicial proceedings, such as those provided for by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which authorise, on therapeutic and safety grounds, the committal to a psychiatric hospital of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society. Directive 2012/13 must be interpreted as meaning that persons suspected of having committed a criminal offence must be informed as soon as possible of their rights from the moment when they are subject to suspicions which justify, in circumstances other than an emergency, the restriction of their liberty by the competent authorities by means of coercive measures and, at the latest, before they are first officially questioned by the police.

| 2. | Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13 and Article 12 of Directive 2013/48 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for judicial proceedings authorising, on therapeutic and safety grounds, the committal to a psychiatric hospital of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society, where that legislation does not enable the court with jurisdiction to verify that the procedural rights covered by those directives were respected in proceedings prior to those before that court, which were not subject to such judicial review. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13 and Article 12 of Directive 2013/48 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for judicial proceedings authorising, on therapeutic and safety grounds, the committal to a psychiatric hospital of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society, where that legislation does not enable the court with jurisdiction to verify that the procedural rights covered by those directives were respected in proceedings prior to those before that court, which were not subject to such judicial review.

| 3. | 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, and Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as meaning that neither that directive nor that provision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights applies to judicial proceedings for the committal to a psychiatric hospital for therapeutic purposes, such as those provided for in Article 155 et seq. of the Zakon za zdraveto (Health Law), at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that there is a risk that, in view of his state of health, the person concerned represents a danger to himself or others. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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, and Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as meaning that neither that directive nor that provision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights applies to judicial proceedings for the committal to a psychiatric hospital for therapeutic purposes, such as those provided for in Article 155 et seq. of the Zakon za zdraveto (Health Law), at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that there is a risk that, in view of his state of health, the person concerned represents a danger to himself or others.

| 4. | The principle of the presumption of innocence referred to in Article 3 of Directive 2016/343 must be interpreted as requiring, in judicial proceedings for the committal to a psychiatric hospital, on therapeutic and safety grounds, of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that the Public Prosecutor’s Office provides proof that the person whose committal is sought is the perpetrator of acts deemed to constitute such a danger. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The principle of the presumption of innocence referred to in Article 3 of Directive 2016/343 must be interpreted as requiring, in judicial proceedings for the committal to a psychiatric hospital, on therapeutic and safety grounds, of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that the Public Prosecutor’s Office provides proof that the person whose committal is sought is the perpetrator of acts deemed to constitute such a danger.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Gesamtverband Autoteile-Handel eV v KIA Motors Corporation

(Case C-527/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Motor vehicles - Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 - First sentence of Article 6(1) - Vehicle repair and maintenance information - Manufacturers’ obligations towards independent operators - Unrestricted access to that information in a standardised format - Procedures - Prohibition of discrimination)

(2019/C 399/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gesamtverband Autoteile-Handel eV

Defendant: KIA Motors Corporation

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information must be interpreted as not requiring automotive manufacturers to provide independent operators with access to vehicle repair and maintenance information in a form that is amenable to onward electronic processing. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information must be interpreted as not requiring automotive manufacturers to provide independent operators with access to vehicle repair and maintenance information in a form that is amenable to onward electronic processing.

| 2. | The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 715/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that, the fact that an automotive manufacturer opens, for the benefit of authorised dealers and repairers, a further channel for information on the sale of original replacement parts by authorised dealers and repairers by engaging an information service provider does not constitute access for independent operators that is discriminatory in comparison to the access granted to authorised dealers and repairers, within the meaning of that provision, since the independent operators also have access to vehicle repair and maintenance information that is non-discriminatory with regard to the content provided and the access granted to authorised dealers and repairers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 715/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that, the fact that an automotive manufacturer opens, for the benefit of authorised dealers and repairers, a further channel for information on the sale of original replacement parts by authorised dealers and repairers by engaging an information service provider does not constitute access for independent operators that is discriminatory in comparison to the access granted to authorised dealers and repairers, within the meaning of that provision, since the independent operators also have access to vehicle repair and maintenance information that is non-discriminatory with regard to the content provided and the access granted to authorised dealers and repairers.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal — United Kingdom) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Henrika Dakneviciute

(Case C-544/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Self-employment - National of a Member State who ceases to be self-employed because of the physical constraints in the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth - Retention of self-employed status)

(2019/C 399/18)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: Henrika Dakneviciute

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a woman who ceases self-employed activity in circumstances where there are physical constraints in the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth retains the status of being self-employed, provided that she returns to the same or another self-employed activity or employment within a reasonable period after the birth of her child.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 September 2019 — Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-556/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - European Union water policy - Directive 2000/60/EC - Article 13(1) and (7) and Article 15(1) - Failure to adopt, publish and communicate to the European Commission revised and updated river basin management plans for Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and El Hierro (Spain) - Article 14 - Failure to inform and consult the public relating to the revision and the updating)

(2019/C 399/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Manhaeve and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Rules that, by not having completed, within the prescribed time-limit, the information and consultation of the public relating to the revision and the updating of the river basin management plans for Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and El Hierro, and by not having, within the prescribed time-limit, adopted, published and communicated to the European Commission the revision and updating of those management plans, the Kingdom of Spain failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on it in accordance with Article 13(7), read in conjunction with Article 13(1), and Article 14 and 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as amended by Council Directive 2013/64/EU of 17 December 2013. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Rules that, by not having completed, within the prescribed time-limit, the information and consultation of the public relating to the revision and the updating of the river basin management plans for Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and El Hierro, and by not having, within the prescribed time-limit, adopted, published and communicated to the European Commission the revision and updating of those management plans, the Kingdom of Spain failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on it in accordance with Article 13(7), read in conjunction with Article 13(1), and Article 14 and 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as amended by Council Directive 2013/64/EU of 17 December 2013.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — UTEP 2006. SRL v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Hatósági Főosztály, Hatósági, Építésügyi és Oktatási Osztály

(Case C-600/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Articles 91 and 92 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 - Article 32(3), Article 33(1) and Article 41(1) - Infringement of the rules on the use of tachographs - Duty of Member States to make provision for effective, dissuasive and non-discriminatory penalties - Resident and non-resident small and medium-sized enterprises - Differential treatment)

(2019/C 399/20)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UTEP 2006. SRL

Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Hatósági Főosztály, Hatósági, Építésügyi és Oktatási Osztály

Operative part of the judgment

Article 41(1) of 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, must be interpreted as precluding an administrative practice of a Member State according to which, unlike non-resident small and medium-sized road transport enterprises, those that are established in the territory of that Member State are liable to receive a lesser penalty, in the form of a warning rather than an administrative fine, where such enterprises commit, for the first time, an infringement of Regulation No 165/2014 of the same degree of gravity.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — AQ (C-662/18), DN (C-672/18) v Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publics

(Joined Cases C-662/18 and C-672/18) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Directive 90/434/EEC - Directive 2009/133/EC - Article 8 - Capital gains relating to exchange of securities transactions - Transfer of securities received at the time of the exchange - Capital gain on which tax has been deferred - Taxation of the shareholders - Taxation on the basis of different bases of assessment and rate rules - Reductions of the basis of assessment taking into account the period for which securities have been held)

(2019/C 399/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AQ (C-662/18), DN (C-672/18)

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) and (6) of Council Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office of an SE or SCE between Member States and Article 8(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an exchange of securities, they require the application, to the capital gain relating to the securities exchanged and deferred for taxation and to the capital gain resulting from the transfer of the securities received in exchange, of the same tax treatment, in the light of the tax rate and the application of a tax allowance to take account of the length of time the securities were held, as that which would have been applied to the capital gain which would have been realised on the transfer of the securities existing before the exchange if the exchange had not taken place.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/19

---

Appeal brought on 22 November 2018 by EM Research Organization, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2018 in Case T-180/17: EM Research Organization v EUIPO - Christoph Fischer e.a

(Case C-728/18 P)

(2019/C 399/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: EM Research Organization, Inc. (represented by: J. Liesegang, N. Lang, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Christoph Fischer GmbH, Ole Weinkath, Multikraft Productions- und Handels GmbH, Phytodor AG

By order of 25 September 2019 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and that EM Research Organization, Inc. shall bear its own costs.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/20

---

Appeal brought on 10 April 2019 by Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2019 in Case T-231/18: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO - Lupu (Djili)

(Case C-293/19 P)

(2019/C 399/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (represented by: C-R Romițan, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 2 October 2019 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and that Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam shall bear its own costs.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/20

---

Appeal brought on 30 April 2019 by Bruno Gollnisch against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2019 in Case T-375/18, Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case C- 351/19 P)

(2019/C 399/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bruno Gollnisch (represented by B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 3 October 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 17 July 2019 — ALLIANZGI-FONDS AEVN v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-545/19)

(2019/C 399/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ALLIANZGI-FONDS AEVN

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred

| 1. | Does either Article 56 [EC] (now Article 63 TFEU) on the free movement of capital or Article 49 [EC] (now Article 56 TFEU) on freedom to provide services preclude tax rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, contained in Article 22 of the Estatuto dos Benefícios Fiscais (Statute of Tax Benefits), which provide for a withholding to be made, in full discharge of liability, from dividends distributed by Portuguese companies and received by collective investment undertakings not resident in Portugal and established in other EU [Member States], whereas collective investment undertakings formed under Portuguese tax law and resident for tax purposes in Portugal can benefit from an exemption from the withholding at source made on the said income? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does either Article 56 [EC] (now Article 63 TFEU) on the free movement of capital or Article 49 [EC] (now Article 56 TFEU) on freedom to provide services preclude tax rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, contained in Article 22 of the Estatuto dos Benefícios Fiscais (Statute of Tax Benefits), which provide for a withholding to be made, in full discharge of liability, from dividends distributed by Portuguese companies and received by collective investment undertakings not resident in Portugal and established in other EU [Member States], whereas collective investment undertakings formed under Portuguese tax law and resident for tax purposes in Portugal can benefit from an exemption from the withholding at source made on the said income?

| 2. | In providing for a withholding to be made at source in respect of dividends paid to non-resident collective investment undertakings and in making the possibility of obtaining an exemption from such a withholding at source available only to resident collective investment undertakings, does the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings treat dividends paid to non-resident collective investment undertakings less favourably, in that such undertakings are wholly unable to take advantage of the aforesaid exemption? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In providing for a withholding to be made at source in respect of dividends paid to non-resident collective investment undertakings and in making the possibility of obtaining an exemption from such a withholding at source available only to resident collective investment undertakings, does the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings treat dividends paid to non-resident collective investment undertakings less favourably, in that such undertakings are wholly unable to take advantage of the aforesaid exemption?

| 3. | For the purposes of assessing whether the Portuguese legislation that establishes specific and different tax treatment for (i) (resident) collective investment undertakings and for (ii) the shareholders or unitholders in collective investment undertakings is discriminatory, are the tax rules that apply to the shareholders or unitholders in the collective investment undertaking relevant? Or, bearing in mind that the tax rules for resident collective investment undertakings are not affected or altered in any way by whether or not their shareholders or unitholders are resident in Portugal, in order to determine whether situations are comparable for the purposes of assessing whether the said legislation is discriminatory, should regard be had only to tax treatment at the level of the investment vehicle? |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the purposes of assessing whether the Portuguese legislation that establishes specific and different tax treatment for (i) (resident) collective investment undertakings and for (ii) the shareholders or unitholders in collective investment undertakings is discriminatory, are the tax rules that apply to the shareholders or unitholders in the collective investment undertaking relevant? Or, bearing in mind that the tax rules for resident collective investment undertakings are not affected or altered in any way by whether or not their shareholders or unitholders are resident in Portugal, in order to determine whether situations are comparable for the purposes of assessing whether the said legislation is discriminatory, should regard be had only to tax treatment at the level of the investment vehicle?

| 4. | Is the difference in treatment between collective investment undertakings resident in Portugal and not resident in Portugal permissible, having regard to the fact that natural or legal persons resident in Portugal who hold shares or units in collective investment undertakings (whether resident or non-resident) are, in both cases, subject in the same way to tax on income distributed by collective investment undertakings (and are generally not exempt), even if non-resident shareholders or unitholders are liable to a higher level of tax? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the difference in treatment between collective investment undertakings resident in Portugal and not resident in Portugal permissible, having regard to the fact that natural or legal persons resident in Portugal who hold shares or units in collective investment undertakings (whether resident or non-resident) are, in both cases, subject in the same way to tax on income distributed by collective investment undertakings (and are generally not exempt), even if non-resident shareholders or unitholders are liable to a higher level of tax?

| 5. | Having regard to the fact that the discrimination at issue in these proceedings concerns a difference in the taxation of dividend income distributed by resident collective investment undertakings to their shareholders or unitholders, when it comes to assessing whether the taxation of the income is comparable, is it lawful to take account of other taxes, levies or charges payable in respect of the investments made by collective investment undertakings? In particular, in order to analyse whether the situations are comparable, is it lawful and permissible to take account of the impact of taxes on assets or costs, or of other types of tax, rather than limiting the examination strictly to the tax on the income of collective investment undertakings, including any specific taxes? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Having regard to the fact that the discrimination at issue in these proceedings concerns a difference in the taxation of dividend income distributed by resident collective investment undertakings to their shareholders or unitholders, when it comes to assessing whether the taxation of the income is comparable, is it lawful to take account of other taxes, levies or charges payable in respect of the investments made by collective investment undertakings? In particular, in order to analyse whether the situations are comparable, is it lawful and permissible to take account of the impact of taxes on assets or costs, or of other types of tax, rather than limiting the examination strictly to the tax on the income of collective investment undertakings, including any specific taxes?

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2019 — Granarolo S.p.A. v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others

(Case C-617/19)

(2019/C 399/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Granarolo S.p.A.

Defendants: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, and Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 3(e) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, (1) as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, (2) be interpreted as including within the concept of ‘installation’ a situation such as that at issue, in which a co-generator built by the applicant on its industrial site to supply energy for its production facility was subsequently transferred, by a transfer of part of the business, to another company, a specialist in the energy sector, by a contract which provided, on the one hand, for (i) the installation co-generating electricity and heat to be transferred to the transferee as well as the certificates, documents, declarations of conformity, licences, concessions, authorisations and permits required for the operation of that installation and for the carrying out of activities, and for (ii) a surface right to be created in the transferee’s favour over an area of the site adequate and functional for the management and maintenance of the installation, in addition to rights of easement over the construction used for co-generation and an exclusive right over the surrounding area, and, on the other hand, for the transferee to supply the transferor for 12 years with energy produced by the installation, at prices set out in the contract? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 3(e) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, (1) as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, (2) be interpreted as including within the concept of ‘installation’ a situation such as that at issue, in which a co-generator built by the applicant on its industrial site to supply energy for its production facility was subsequently transferred, by a transfer of part of the business, to another company, a specialist in the energy sector, by a contract which provided, on the one hand, for (i) the installation co-generating electricity and heat to be transferred to the transferee as well as the certificates, documents, declarations of conformity, licences, concessions, authorisations and permits required for the operation of that installation and for the carrying out of activities, and for (ii) a surface right to be created in the transferee’s favour over an area of the site adequate and functional for the management and maintenance of the installation, in addition to rights of easement over the construction used for co-generation and an exclusive right over the surrounding area, and, on the other hand, for the transferee to supply the transferor for 12 years with energy produced by the installation, at prices set out in the contract?

| 2. | In particular, may a connection between a co-generator and a production facility, such that that production facility, which belongs to another party and which despite having a privileged relationship with the co-generator for the purposes of supplying energy (connected by means of: an electricity distribution system; a specific supply contract with the energy company that is the transferee of the installation; a commitment for that transferee to supply a minimum amount of energy to the production facility or reimburse a sum equal to the difference between the cost of supplying energy on the market and the prices set out in the contract; a discount on the sale prices of the energy as from 10 years and 6 months after the start-date of the contract; an option for the transferor to repurchase the co-generator from the transferee at any time; and a requirement for authorisation to be given by the transferor in order for works to be carried out on the co-generator installation), is able to continue its own activity even in the event that the supply of energy is interrupted or the co-generator malfunctions or ceases its activity, be included within the concept of ‘technical connection’ referred to in Article 3(e) of Directive 2003/87/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In particular, may a connection between a co-generator and a production facility, such that that production facility, which belongs to another party and which despite having a privileged relationship with the co-generator for the purposes of supplying energy (connected by means of: an electricity distribution system; a specific supply contract with the energy company that is the transferee of the installation; a commitment for that transferee to supply a minimum amount of energy to the production facility or reimburse a sum equal to the difference between the cost of supplying energy on the market and the prices set out in the contract; a discount on the sale prices of the energy as from 10 years and 6 months after the start-date of the contract; an option for the transferor to repurchase the co-generator from the transferee at any time; and a requirement for authorisation to be given by the transferor in order for works to be carried out on the co-generator installation), is able to continue its own activity even in the event that the supply of energy is interrupted or the co-generator malfunctions or ceases its activity, be included within the concept of ‘technical connection’ referred to in Article 3(e) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

| 3. | Lastly, in the event of an actual transfer of an energy-production installation by the party who constructed it — which is also the owner of an industrial plant on the same site — to a different company which is a specialist in the field of energy, for reasons of efficiency, does the possibility of delinking the relevant emissions from the holder of the industrial plant’s ETS permit, following the transfer, and the possible effect that those emissions will ‘evade’ the ETS system due to the fact that the energy-production installation, considered alone, does not exceed the threshold for qualification as a ‘small emitter’[,] represent an infringement of the rule of aggregation of sources provided for in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC, or, on the contrary, is it merely a lawful consequence of the organisational choices of the operators, not prohibited by the ETS system? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Lastly, in the event of an actual transfer of an energy-production installation by the party who constructed it — which is also the owner of an industrial plant on the same site — to a different company which is a specialist in the field of energy, for reasons of efficiency, does the possibility of delinking the relevant emissions from the holder of the industrial plant’s ETS permit, following the transfer, and the possible effect that those emissions will ‘evade’ the ETS system due to the fact that the energy-production installation, considered alone, does not exceed the threshold for qualification as a ‘small emitter’[,] represent an infringement of the rule of aggregation of sources provided for in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC, or, on the contrary, is it merely a lawful consequence of the organisational choices of the operators, not prohibited by the ETS system?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.

(2)  Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 63).

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 23 August 2019 — Sappi Austria Produktions-GmbH & Co KG and Wasserverband ‘Region Gratkorn-Gratwein’

(Case C-629/19)

(2019/C 399/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Sappi Austria Produktions-GmbH & Co KG, Wasserverband ‘Region Gratkorn-Gratwein’

Defendant authority: Landeshauptmann der Steiermark

Questions referred

| 1. | Is sewage sludge to be regarded as waste in light of the exclusion under Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (1) in conjunction with Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment and/or the Sewage Sludge Directive, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008? (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is sewage sludge to be regarded as waste in light of the exclusion under Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (1) in conjunction with Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment and/or the Sewage Sludge Directive, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008? (2)

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative: | Does Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives permit a substance to be classified as a by-product within the meaning of the concept of waste under EU law if, for process-related reasons, other substances which would otherwise have to be regarded as waste are added to that substance in a small proportion, if this has no effect on the composition of the substance as a whole and provides a significant benefit to the environment? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

Does Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives permit a substance to be classified as a by-product within the meaning of the concept of waste under EU law if, for process-related reasons, other substances which would otherwise have to be regarded as waste are added to that substance in a small proportion, if this has no effect on the composition of the substance as a whole and provides a significant benefit to the environment?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 311, p. 1.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie v Metalen Galler NV, KGH Belgium NV, LW-Idee GmbH

(Case C-632/19)

(2019/C 399/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie

Defendants: Metalen Galler NV, KGH Belgium NV, LW-Idee GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (1) of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because the Commission did not give Chinese producers/exporters the opportunity, in good time, to take cognisance of the information regarding product types on the basis of which the normal value was established and/or because the Commission, in the context of the calculation of the dumping margin for the products concerned, when comparing the normal value of the products of an Indian producer with the export prices of similar Chinese products, had refused to take into account adjustments related to import duties on raw materials and indirect taxes in the analogue country, India, and to differences in production (costs)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (1) of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because the Commission did not give Chinese producers/exporters the opportunity, in good time, to take cognisance of the information regarding product types on the basis of which the normal value was established and/or because the Commission, in the context of the calculation of the dumping margin for the products concerned, when comparing the normal value of the products of an Indian producer with the export prices of similar Chinese products, had refused to take into account adjustments related to import duties on raw materials and indirect taxes in the analogue country, India, and to differences in production (costs)?

| 2. | Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 3(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because, for the purposes of the assessment of injury, the Commission considered the imports from two Chinese companies which had been found not to be involved in dumping to be dumped imports? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 3(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because, for the purposes of the assessment of injury, the Commission considered the imports from two Chinese companies which had been found not to be involved in dumping to be dumped imports?

| 3. | Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because, in assessing whether EU industry exports contributed to the injury suffered by that industry, the Commission relied on information relating to producers who are not domestic producers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because, in assessing whether EU industry exports contributed to the injury suffered by that industry, the Commission relied on information relating to producers who are not domestic producers?

| 4. | Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 19(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because the Commission failed to ensure that the two domestic (Italian) producers provided adequate explanations as to the reasons why it was not possible to provide a summary of confidential information? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 19(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because the Commission failed to ensure that the two domestic (Italian) producers provided adequate explanations as to the reasons why it was not possible to provide a summary of confidential information?

| 5. | Does Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China infringe Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community due to the Commission’s delay in communicating product information, thereby infringing the interests of Chinese producers/exporters? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China infringe Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community due to the Commission’s delay in communicating product information, thereby infringing the interests of Chinese producers/exporters?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51.

(3)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie v Metalen Galler NV, Vollers Belgium NV, LW-Idee GmbH

(Case C-633/19)

(2019/C 399/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie

Defendants: Metalen Galler NV, Vollers Belgium NV, LW-Idee GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (1) of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because the Commission did not give Chinese producers/exporters the opportunity, in good time, to take cognisance of the information regarding product types on the basis of which the normal value was established and/or because the Commission, in the context of the calculation of the dumping margin for the products concerned, when comparing the normal value of the products of an Indian producer with the export prices of similar Chinese products, had refused to take into account adjustments related to import duties on raw materials and indirect taxes in the analogue country, India, and to differences in production (costs)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (1) of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because the Commission did not give Chinese producers/exporters the opportunity, in good time, to take cognisance of the information regarding product types on the basis of which the normal value was established and/or because the Commission, in the context of the calculation of the dumping margin for the products concerned, when comparing the normal value of the products of an Indian producer with the export prices of similar Chinese products, had refused to take into account adjustments related to import duties on raw materials and indirect taxes in the analogue country, India, and to differences in production (costs)?

| 2. | Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 3(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because, for the purposes of the assessment of injury, the Commission considered the imports from two Chinese companies which had been found not to be involved in dumping to be dumped imports? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 3(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because, for the purposes of the assessment of injury, the Commission considered the imports from two Chinese companies which had been found not to be involved in dumping to be dumped imports?

| 3. | Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because, in assessing whether EU industry exports contributed to the injury suffered by that industry, the Commission relied on information relating to producers who are not domestic producers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because, in assessing whether EU industry exports contributed to the injury suffered by that industry, the Commission relied on information relating to producers who are not domestic producers?

| 4. | Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 19(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because the Commission failed to ensure that the two domestic (Italian) producers provided adequate explanations as to the reasons why it was not possible to provide a summary of confidential information? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 19(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because the Commission failed to ensure that the two domestic (Italian) producers provided adequate explanations as to the reasons why it was not possible to provide a summary of confidential information?

| 5. | Does Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China infringe Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community due to the Commission’s delay in communicating product information, thereby infringing the interests of Chinese producers/exporters? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China infringe Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community due to the Commission’s delay in communicating product information, thereby infringing the interests of Chinese producers/exporters?

| 6. | Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (as amended) provides that the individual anti-dumping duty rate of 64.4% applicable to the company Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd., Ningbo City, is conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which conforms to the requirements set out in Annex II, and that, if no such invoice is presented, the anti-dumping duty rate applicable to all other companies will apply. Can the individual anti-dumping duty rate still be granted to the declarant in good faith, in the context of an additional claim for anti-dumping duties following an Olaf investigation, if Olaf has established that the disputed fasteners are not of the indicated Indonesian origin, but were actually manufactured in China by the company Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd., but an invoice with the required particulars for the individual anti-dumping duty cannot be submitted because it was the intention of the exporters to mislead the authorities of the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (as amended) provides that the individual anti-dumping duty rate of 64.4% applicable to the company Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd., Ningbo City, is conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which conforms to the requirements set out in Annex II, and that, if no such invoice is presented, the anti-dumping duty rate applicable to all other companies will apply. Can the individual anti-dumping duty rate still be granted to the declarant in good faith, in the context of an additional claim for anti-dumping duties following an Olaf investigation, if Olaf has established that the disputed fasteners are not of the indicated Indonesian origin, but were actually manufactured in China by the company Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd., but an invoice with the required particulars for the individual anti-dumping duty cannot be submitted because it was the intention of the exporters to mislead the authorities of the Member States?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51.

(3)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 28 August 2019 — Azienda Agricola Ambrosi Nicola Giuseppe and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali

(Case C-640/19)

(2019/C 399/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Azienda Agricola Ambrosi Nicola Giuseppe, Azienda Agricola Castagna Giovanni, Soc. Azienda Agricola Castellani Enio, Nereo e Giuliano Ss, Azienda Agricola De Fanti Maria Teresa, Azienda Agricola Giacomazzi Vilmare, Soc. Azienda Agricola Iseo di Lunardi Giampaolo e Silvano Ss, Soc. Azienda Agricola Mastrolat di Mastrotto Franco e Luca Ss, Azienda Agricola Righetti Michele e Damiano, Azienda Agricola Scandola Stefano e Gianni, Azienda Agricola Tadiello Roberto, Azienda Agricola Turazza Mario, Azienda Agricola Zuin Tiziano, 2 B Società Agricola Srl and Others, Azienda Agricola Fracasso Claudio, Azienda Agricola Pozzan Mirko

Defendants: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali

Questions referred

| 1. | In so far they are intended to protect the balance between supply and demand for dairy products on the EU market, are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84, (1) Articles 1 and 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, (2) Articles 1(1) and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 (3) and Articles 55, 64 and 65 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, (4) and the annexes thereto, to be interpreted as excluding from the calculation of ‘milk quotas’ production intended for the export of PDO cheeses to countries outside the European Union, in line with the objectives aimed at the protection of such products laid down by Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, (5) as confirmed by Regulation (EEC) No 510/2006 (6) and Articles 4 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, (7) in accordance with the principles set out in Articles 32 (formerly 27), 39 (formerly 33), 40 (formerly 34) and 41 (formerly 35) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In so far they are intended to protect the balance between supply and demand for dairy products on the EU market, are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84, (1) Articles 1 and 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, (2) Articles 1(1) and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 (3) and Articles 55, 64 and 65 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, (4) and the annexes thereto, to be interpreted as excluding from the calculation of ‘milk quotas’ production intended for the export of PDO cheeses to countries outside the European Union, in line with the objectives aimed at the protection of such products laid down by Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, (5) as confirmed by Regulation (EEC) No 510/2006 (6) and Articles 4 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, (7) in accordance with the principles set out in Articles 32 (formerly 27), 39 (formerly 33), 40 (formerly 34) and 41 (formerly 35) TFEU?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, do those rules, thus interpreted, preclude the inclusion in individual reference quantities of quotas of milk intended for the production of PDO cheeses for export outside the European Union, this being the effect of Article 2 of Decreto-legge 28 marzo 2003, n. 49, convertito con modifiche in legge 30 maggio 2003, n. 119 (Decree Law No 49 of 28 March 2003, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 119 of 30 May 2003), and Article 2 of legge 26 novembre 1992, n. 468 (Law No 468 of 26 November 1992), in so far as that provision is referred to in Article 2 of Decree Law No 49/2003?
  In the alternative, in the event that that interpretation is not considered to be correct: |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, do those rules, thus interpreted, preclude the inclusion in individual reference quantities of quotas of milk intended for the production of PDO cheeses for export outside the European Union, this being the effect of Article 2 of Decreto-legge 28 marzo 2003, n. 49, convertito con modifiche in legge 30 maggio 2003, n. 119 (Decree Law No 49 of 28 March 2003, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 119 of 30 May 2003), and Article 2 of legge 26 novembre 1992, n. 468 (Law No 468 of 26 November 1992), in so far as that provision is referred to in Article 2 of Decree Law No 49/2003?

In the alternative, in the event that that interpretation is not considered to be correct:

| 3. | Are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84, Articles 1 and 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, Articles 1(1) and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 and Articles 55, 64 and 65 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and the annexes thereto (as well as the national Italian transposition provisions set out in Decree Law No 49 of 28 March 2003, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 119 of 30 May 2003, and Article 2 of Law No 468 of 26 November 1992, in so far as that provision is referred to in Article 2 of Decree Law No 49/2003), which include rather than excluding in the calculation of the quantities allocated to each Member State milk used for the production of PDO cheeses exported to or intended for markets outside the European Union, in so far as such exports are concerned, at odds with the protection objectives set out in Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, which protects PDO production, with particular reference to Article 13, as confirmed by Regulation (EEC) No 510/2006 and by Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, and also with reference to the protection objectives set out in Article 4 of the latter regulation, and also at odds with Articles 32 (formerly 27), 39 (formerly 33), 40 (formerly 34) and 41 (formerly 35) TFEU, the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, proportionality and non-discrimination and the principle of freedom to conduct business when exporting goods outside the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84, Articles 1 and 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, Articles 1(1) and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 and Articles 55, 64 and 65 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and the annexes thereto (as well as the national Italian transposition provisions set out in Decree Law No 49 of 28 March 2003, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 119 of 30 May 2003, and Article 2 of Law No 468 of 26 November 1992, in so far as that provision is referred to in Article 2 of Decree Law No 49/2003), which include rather than excluding in the calculation of the quantities allocated to each Member State milk used for the production of PDO cheeses exported to or intended for markets outside the European Union, in so far as such exports are concerned, at odds with the protection objectives set out in Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, which protects PDO production, with particular reference to Article 13, as confirmed by Regulation (EEC) No 510/2006 and by Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, and also with reference to the protection objectives set out in Article 4 of the latter regulation, and also at odds with Articles 32 (formerly 27), 39 (formerly 33), 40 (formerly 34) and 41 (formerly 35) TFEU, the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, proportionality and non-discrimination and the principle of freedom to conduct business when exporting goods outside the European Union?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 10).

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, of 28 December 1992, establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector(OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 123).

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

(5)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1).

(6)  Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).

(7)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 30 August 2019 — RESOPRE — Sociedade Revendedora de Aparelhos de Precisão SA v Município de Peso da Régua

(Case C-643/19)

(2019/C 399/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RESOPRE — Sociedade Revendedora de Aparelhos de Precisão SA

Defendant: Município de Peso da Régua,

Other parties to the proceedings: DATAREDE — Sistemas de Dados e Comunicações, SA, Alexandre Barbosa Borgesm, SA, Fernando L. Gaspar — Sinalização e Equipamentos Rodoviários, SA

Question referred

In a pre-contractual public procurement procedure relating to a concession for the exploitation of plots of land to install and operate [parking meters] and control compliance with the provisions laid down in the municipal regulation on short-stay paid parking zones in force in the municipality, does EU law (in particular, Articles 56(1) and 60(4) of Directive 2014/24/[EU] (1) and the principle of competition) allow the instructions for tenderers to establish that tenderers must submit the software and equipment (the parking meter) to be supplied, in order to demonstrate both that the tenderer complies with the terms and conditions in the contract documents and the characteristics of the tenders, and to establish an award criterion related to the ‘technical and functional suitability of the solution’ factor, to be assessed on the basis of that demonstration (see paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Instructions for Tenderers)?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2019 — EUflight.de GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-648/19)

(2019/C 399/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Erding

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EUflight.de GmbH

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Question referred

In order to have a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, (1) is it a condition that the passenger boards the flight even where it is established prior to departure that there will be a long delay to that flight?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 2 September 2019 — KO v Fallimento Consulmarketing SpA

(Case C-652/19)

(2019/C 399/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KO

Defendant: Fallimento Consulmarketing SpA

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination enshrined in clause 4 of Directive 99/70/EC (1) on employment conditions preclude the legal provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 10 of Decreto Legislativo 23/15 (Legislative Decree No 23/15), which, with regard to collective redundancies that are unlawful due to non-compliance with the selection criteria, provide for a dual and differentiated system of protection whereby in the same procedure appropriate, effective and dissuasive protection is provided for employment relationships of indefinite duration created prior to 7 March 2015 — for which reinstatement and the payment of employer’s contributions are envisaged as possible remedies — yet limited compensation only, between maximum and minimum amounts, is offered for fixed-term employment relationships having the same length of service, in that they were created prior to that date but converted to an open-ended contract after 7 March 2015, which is a less effective and dissuasive form of protection? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination enshrined in clause 4 of Directive 99/70/EC (1) on employment conditions preclude the legal provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 10 of Decreto Legislativo 23/15 (Legislative Decree No 23/15), which, with regard to collective redundancies that are unlawful due to non-compliance with the selection criteria, provide for a dual and differentiated system of protection whereby in the same procedure appropriate, effective and dissuasive protection is provided for employment relationships of indefinite duration created prior to 7 March 2015 — for which reinstatement and the payment of employer’s contributions are envisaged as possible remedies — yet limited compensation only, between maximum and minimum amounts, is offered for fixed-term employment relationships having the same length of service, in that they were created prior to that date but converted to an open-ended contract after 7 March 2015, which is a less effective and dissuasive form of protection?

| 2. | Do the provisions contained in Articles 20 and 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in Directive 98/59/EC (2) preclude a legal provision such as Article 10 of Legislative Decree No 23/15 which introduces exclusively for workers hired (or whose fixed-term contract was converted) for an indefinite duration after 7 March 2015 an arrangement whereby, in the event of collective redundancies that are unlawful due to non-compliance with the selection criteria, reinstatement is not an option — unlike for the other similar employment relationships established beforehand and involved in the same procedure — and which instead introduces a concurrent system of compensation only which is insufficient to make good the financial consequences resulting from the loss of employment and which is inferior to the other coexisting model, applied to other workers whose relationships have the same characteristics with the sole exception of the date of conversion or creation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the provisions contained in Articles 20 and 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in Directive 98/59/EC (2) preclude a legal provision such as Article 10 of Legislative Decree No 23/15 which introduces exclusively for workers hired (or whose fixed-term contract was converted) for an indefinite duration after 7 March 2015 an arrangement whereby, in the event of collective redundancies that are unlawful due to non-compliance with the selection criteria, reinstatement is not an option — unlike for the other similar employment relationships established beforehand and involved in the same procedure — and which instead introduces a concurrent system of compensation only which is insufficient to make good the financial consequences resulting from the loss of employment and which is inferior to the other coexisting model, applied to other workers whose relationships have the same characteristics with the sole exception of the date of conversion or creation?

---

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

(2)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16).

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 September 2019 — Criminal proceedings against DK

(Case C-653/19)

(2019/C 399/34)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

DK

Question referred

Is a national law that, during the trial stage of criminal proceedings, requires a change in circumstances as a condition for granting the defence's application for the release of the accused person from detention, consistent with Article 6 and recital 22 of Directive 2016/343 (1) and with Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

---

(1)  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 (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/30

---

Appeal brought on 4 September 2019 by NRW.Bank against the judgment delivered on 26 June 2019 in Case T-466/16 NRW.Bank v SRB

(Case C-662/19 P)

(2019/C 399/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: NRW.Bank (represented by: J. Seitz, J. Witte and D. Flore, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB), Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 in Case T-466/16 and annul the decision of the defendant at first instance and the respondent to the appeal relating to the applicant’s annual contribution to the restructuring fund for the contribution period 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 in Case T-466/16 and annul the decision of the defendant at first instance and the respondent to the appeal relating to the applicant’s annual contribution to the restructuring fund for the contribution period 2016;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the judgment referred to in point 1 and refer to case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the judgment referred to in point 1 and refer to case back to the General Court;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant invokes two grounds of appeal:

Firstly, contrary to what is concluded by the General Court, the appellant’s action for annulment was not out of time for the purpose of the sixth indent of Article 263 TFEU. The defendant’s decision relating to the applicant’s annual contribution to the restructuring fund for 2016 is based on two successive decisions of the defendant, namely the ‘first SRB decision’ and the ‘second SRB decision’. The two SRB decisions were addressed solely to the national resolution authority (‘the FMSA’) and the appellant was neither directly informed thereof nor were those decisions sent to it. The appellant only learned of the existence of the SRB decisions (and not of their contents) by means of the FMSA’s recovery notices, namely the ‘first FMSA notice’ and the ‘second FMSA notice’.

Contrary to what is concluded by the General Court, the decisive event for the purposes of calculating the time limit for bringing an action for annulment is solely the date on which the second FMSA notice reached the appellant. The second SRB decision replaced the first SRB decision.

But even assuming that the second SRB decision did not entirely replace the first SRB decision, but only modified it, the beginning of the time limit for bringing an action to be taken into account is also, in accordance with the case-law, solely the date on which the second FMSA notice was received.

The appellant considers moreover that, contrary to what is concluded by the General Court, it was not obliged, in view of the particularities of the present case, to request the first SRB decision and to thus gain knowledge of its contents and its reasoning. Such an obligation in any event does not exist where, as in the present case, there is uncertainty regarding both the status of the person concerned and the purpose of the alleged requirement to formulate a request.

Finally, it must be noted that the time limit for bringing an action was respected, if only for reasons of legitimate expectations, but also, in any event, on the basis of excusable error.

Secondly, the General Court errs in law where it considers that the appellant put forward neither grounds nor arguments relating to the second SRB decision. That conclusion breaches the appellant’s right to be heard in accordance with the second indent of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The General Court overlooked several of the appellant’s submissions and failed to take them into consideration in its decision, thus depriving the appellant of a fair trial.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Gera (Germany) lodged on 6 September 2019 — MM v Volkswagen AG

(Case C-663/19)

(2019/C 399/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Gera

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MM

Defendant: Volkswagen AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Paragraphs 6(1) and 27(1) of the EG-Fahrzeuggenehmigungsverordnung (EC Vehicle Approval Regulation; EG-FGV) (1) and/or Articles 18(1) and 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the manufacturer is in breach of its obligation to issue a valid certificate pursuant to Paragraph 6(1) of the EG-FGV (and/or of its obligation to deliver a certificate of conformity pursuant to Article 18(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC), if it has installed in the vehicle an impermissible defeat device within the meaning of Articles 5(2) and 3.10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (3), and that the placing of such a vehicle on the market is in breach of the prohibition on placing a vehicle on the market without a valid certificate of conformity pursuant to Paragraph 27(1) of the EG-FGV (and/or of the prohibition of sale without a valid certificate of conformity pursuant to Article 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC)?
  If that question is to be answered in the affirmative:






  1a. | Are Paragraphs 6 and 27 of the EG-FGV and/or Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC also aimed at protecting the end customer and — in the case of resale on the second-hand market — in particular the subsequent car buyer, including in relation to his freedom of disposal and his assets? Does a car buyer’s acquisition of a used vehicle that has been placed on the market without a valid certificate of conformity come within the area of the risks for the prevention of which these standards were adopted? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Are Paragraphs 6(1) and 27(1) of the EG-Fahrzeuggenehmigungsverordnung (EC Vehicle Approval Regulation; EG-FGV) (1) and/or Articles 18(1) and 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the manufacturer is in breach of its obligation to issue a valid certificate pursuant to Paragraph 6(1) of the EG-FGV (and/or of its obligation to deliver a certificate of conformity pursuant to Article 18(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC), if it has installed in the vehicle an impermissible defeat device within the meaning of Articles 5(2) and 3.10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (3), and that the placing of such a vehicle on the market is in breach of the prohibition on placing a vehicle on the market without a valid certificate of conformity pursuant to Paragraph 27(1) of the EG-FGV (and/or of the prohibition of sale without a valid certificate of conformity pursuant to Article 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC)?

If that question is to be answered in the affirmative:

1a.

Are Paragraphs 6 and 27 of the EG-FGV and/or Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC also aimed at protecting the end customer and — in the case of resale on the second-hand market — in particular the subsequent car buyer, including in relation to his freedom of disposal and his assets? Does a car buyer’s acquisition of a used vehicle that has been placed on the market without a valid certificate of conformity come within the area of the risks for the prevention of which these standards were adopted?

| 2. | Is Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007 also aimed at protecting the end customer and — in the case of resale on the second-hand market — in particular the subsequent car buyer, including in relation to his freedom of disposal and his assets? Does a car buyer’s acquisition of a used vehicle in which an inadmissible defeat device has been installed come within the area of the risks for the prevention of which this standard was adopted? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007 also aimed at protecting the end customer and — in the case of resale on the second-hand market — in particular the subsequent car buyer, including in relation to his freedom of disposal and his assets? Does a car buyer’s acquisition of a used vehicle in which an inadmissible defeat device has been installed come within the area of the risks for the prevention of which this standard was adopted?

| 3. | Are Paragraphs 6 and 27 of the EG-FGV, and/or Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC and Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a breach thereof, the offsetting of compensation for the actual use made of the vehicle against the damage incurred by the end customer is wholly or partially inapplicable (as appropriate: in what manner and to what extent?), if the end customer may demand, and does demand, the rescission of the vehicle purchase contract as a result of that breach? Would that interpretation be different if the breach also involves the deception of the approval authorities and of end customers into believing that all the conditions for approval have been met and that the use of the vehicle on the roads is permissible without restriction, and that there has been a breach and deception for the purpose of reducing costs and maximising profits through high sales figures with the simultaneous creation of a competitive advantage at the expense of unsuspecting customers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are Paragraphs 6 and 27 of the EG-FGV, and/or Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC and Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a breach thereof, the offsetting of compensation for the actual use made of the vehicle against the damage incurred by the end customer is wholly or partially inapplicable (as appropriate: in what manner and to what extent?), if the end customer may demand, and does demand, the rescission of the vehicle purchase contract as a result of that breach? Would that interpretation be different if the breach also involves the deception of the approval authorities and of end customers into believing that all the conditions for approval have been met and that the use of the vehicle on the roads is permissible without restriction, and that there has been a breach and deception for the purpose of reducing costs and maximising profits through high sales figures with the simultaneous creation of a competitive advantage at the expense of unsuspecting customers?

---

(1)  EC Vehicle Approval Regulation of 3 February 2011 (BGBl. I, p. 126), last amended by Article 7 of the Regulation of 23 March 2017 (BGBl. I, p. 522).

(2)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 18 September 2019 — ‘Soho Group’ SIA v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

(Case C-686/19)

(2019/C 399/37)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Soho Group’ SIA

Defendant: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the concept ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, an autonomous concept of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the concept ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, an autonomous concept of EU law?

| 2. | Are the costs of extending the credit included in the concept ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, in circumstances such as those of the present case, if the clauses on extending the credit form part of the terms and conditions of the credit agreement agreed by the borrower and the lender? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the costs of extending the credit included in the concept ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, in circumstances such as those of the present case, if the clauses on extending the credit form part of the terms and conditions of the credit agreement agreed by the borrower and the lender?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 18 September 2019 — Ryanair Ltd v PJ

(Case C-687/19)

(2019/C 399/38)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

Defendant: PJ

Question referred

Must Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents, (1) and therefore Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention of 28 May 1999 for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, be interpreted as precluding the payment of compensation for a psychological injury, such as post-traumatic stress, on the basis of those provisions?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 140, p. 2.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 25 September 2019 — G.M.A. v Belgian State

(Case C-710/19)

(2019/C 399/39)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: G.M.A.

Defendant: Belgian State

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the host Member State is required (1) to allow jobseekers a reasonable period of time to acquaint themselves with potentially suitable employment opportunities and take the necessary steps to obtain employment, (2) to accept that the time allowed for seeking employment cannot in any circumstances be less than six months, and (3) to permit a jobseeker to stay within its territory for the whole of that period, without requiring him to prove that he has a real chance of obtaining employment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the host Member State is required (1) to allow jobseekers a reasonable period of time to acquaint themselves with potentially suitable employment opportunities and take the necessary steps to obtain employment, (2) to accept that the time allowed for seeking employment cannot in any circumstances be less than six months, and (3) to permit a jobseeker to stay within its territory for the whole of that period, without requiring him to prove that he has a real chance of obtaining employment?

| 2. | Are Articles 15 and 31 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, (1) Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the general principles of primacy of EU law and effectiveness of directives, to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the national courts of the host Member State are required, in the context of an action for annulment brought against a decision refusing to recognise a right of residence of more than three months of an EU citizen, to have regard to new facts and matters arising after the decision of the national authorities, where such facts and matters are capable of altering the situation of the person concerned in such a way that it is no longer permissible to restrict his right of residence in the host Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 15 and 31 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, (1) Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the general principles of primacy of EU law and effectiveness of directives, to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the national courts of the host Member State are required, in the context of an action for annulment brought against a decision refusing to recognise a right of residence of more than three months of an EU citizen, to have regard to new facts and matters arising after the decision of the national authorities, where such facts and matters are capable of altering the situation of the person concerned in such a way that it is no longer permissible to restrict his right of residence in the host Member State?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/34

---

Action brought on 3 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-730/19)

(2019/C 399/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Y. Marinova and E. Manhaeve)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, (1) in conjunction with Annex XI to that directive, by systematically and continuously exceeding in zone BG0006 (South-East):






  (i) | the hourly limit values for SO2 as from 2007; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, (1) in conjunction with Annex XI to that directive, by systematically and continuously exceeding in zone BG0006 (South-East):

(i)

the hourly limit values for SO2 as from 2007;

| (ii) | the daily limit values for SO2 as from 2007, with the exception of 2010 and 2012; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the daily limit values for SO2 as from 2007, with the exception of 2010 and 2012;

| — | declare that, as from 11 June 2010, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, and in particular its obligation in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) to ensure as short as possible a period in which the abovementioned limit values for SO2 in zone BG0006 (South-East) are exceeded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, as from 11 June 2010, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, and in particular its obligation in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) to ensure as short as possible a period in which the abovementioned limit values for SO2 in zone BG0006 (South-East) are exceeded;

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

—

order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the Commission claims that Bulgaria has infringed the provisions of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, in conjunction with Annex XI to that directive, in so far as it has systematically and continuously exceeded, in zone BG0006 (South-East), the hourly and daily limit values for SO2.

Secondly, the Commission maintains that Bulgaria has infringed the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, in so far as, as from 11 June 2010, it has not included in its air quality plans any appropriate measures intended to ensure that the period during which the limit values are exceeded is as short as possible.

---

(1)  Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1)

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/35

---

Action brought on 9 October 2019 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-743/19)

(2019/C 399/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, I. Anagnostopoulou, and C. Biz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision (EU) 2019/1199 of 13 June 2019; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision (EU) 2019/1199 of 13 June 2019; (1)

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

—

order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea in law, the Parliament claims that the author of the contested decision, be it the Council or all the Member States, does not have the power to determine the location of the seat of the European Labour Authority (ELA). The Parliament is of the opinion that:

Article 341 TFEU does not constitute an appropriate legal basis to determine the seat of bodies of the European Union such as decentralised agencies. In the present case, ELA was established by the EU legislature by Regulation (EU) 2019/1149, (2) adopted on the basis of Articles 46 and 48 TFUE by means of the ordinary legislative procedure. The Parliament considers that Article 341 TFEU cannot withdraw from the scope of competence of the EU legislature, which established ELA, the power to decide on the location of its seat, by attributing it instead to the Member States, and that therefore that provision cannot validily serve as the legal basis for the contested decision.

By the second plea in law, raised in the alternative in the event that the Court were to find that Article 341 TFEU provides an appropriate legal basis for the contested decision, the Parliament seeks to claim that that decision is vitiated by an absolute failure to state reasons. The Parliament considers that, as a legal act of the European Union, the constested decision is subject to the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFUE, which was not fulfilled in any way, since it utterly fails to specify the reasons why the city of Bratislava was chosen to host the seat of ELA.

---

(1)  Decision (EU) 2019/1199 taken by common accord between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 13 June 2019 on the location of the seat of the European Labour Authority (OJ 2019 L 189, p. 68).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 establishing a European Labour Authority, amending Regulations (EC) No 883/2004, (EU) No 492/2011, and (EU) 2016/589 and repealing Decision (EU) 2016/344 (OJ 2019 L 186, p. 21).

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/36

---

Action brought on 10 October 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-744/19)

(2019/C 399/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Tricot, G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1) | declare that






  — | by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, (1) |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

declare that

—

by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, (1)

| — | and by not communicating such provisions to the Commission, |
| --- | --- |

—

and by not communicating such provisions to the Commission,

| — | the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 106 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 106 of that directive;

| 2) | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2)

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its sole plea in law, the Commission claims that, by not adopting and not communicating to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive 2013/59, the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 106 of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 13, p. 1.

---

General Court

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Italia and Eurallumina v Commission

(Joined Cases T-119/07 and T-207/07) (1)

(State aid - Directive 2003/96/EC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Exemption from excise duty - Selective nature - Guidelines on national regional aid - Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection of 2001 - Legitimate expectations - Presumption of legality attaching to measures of the institutions - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons - Contradictory reasoning)

(2019/C 399/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant in Case T-119/07: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Aiello and P. Garofoli, avvocati dello Stato)

Applicant in Case T-207/07: Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: initially, L. Martin Alegi, R. Denton and E. Cormack, and, subsequently, L. Martin Alegi, R. Denton, A. Stratakis and L. Philippou, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: in Case T-119/07, V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, G. Conte and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents, and, in Case T 207/07, initially, V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, G. Conte and K. Walkerová, and, subsequently, N. Khan and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment, in whole or in part, of Commission Decision 2007/375/EC of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively (C 78/2001 (ex NN 22/01), C 79/2001 (ex NN 23/01), C 80/2001 (ex NN 26/01)) (OJ 2007 L 147, p. 29), in so far as it finds that State aid was granted by the Italian Republic, from 1 January 2004, on the basis of the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Sardinia (Italy), and in so far as it orders the Italian Republic to recover the aid or to cancel or suspend its payment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs in Case T-119/07; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs in Case T-119/07;

| 3. | Orders Eurallumina SpA to pay the costs in Case T-207/07. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Eurallumina SpA to pay the costs in Case T-207/07.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Ireland and Aughinish Alumina v Commission

(Joined Cases T-129/07 and T-130/07) (1)

(State aid - Directive 2003/96/EC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Exemption from excise duty - Selective nature of the measure - Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection of 2001)

(2019/C 399/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant in Case T-129/07: Ireland (represented, initially, by D. O’Hagan and E. Alkin, subsequently, by E. Alkin, E. Creedon and A. Joyce, and, finally, by E. Alkin, A. Joyce, M. Browne and G. Hodge, acting as Agents, and by P. McGarry, Senior Counsel)

Applicant in Case T-130/07: Aughinish Alumina Ltd (Askeaton, Ireland) (represented, initially, by J. Handoll and C. Waterson, and, subsequently, by C. Waterson and C. Little, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented, initially, by V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, G. Conte and K. Walkerová, and, subsequently, by N. Khan and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment, in whole or in part, of Commission Decision 2007/375/EC of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively (C 78/2001 (ex NN 22/01), C 79/2001 (ex NN 23/01), C 80/2001 (ex NN 26/01)) (OJ 2007 L 147, p. 29), in so far as it finds that State aid was granted by Ireland, from 1 January 2004, on the basis of the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Shannon region (Ireland), and in so far as it orders Ireland to recover the aid or to cancel or suspend its payment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Ireland to pay the costs in Case T-129/07; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs in Case T-129/07;

| 3. | Orders Aughinish Alumina Ltd to pay the costs in Case T-130/07. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Aughinish Alumina Ltd to pay the costs in Case T-130/07.

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — FIH Holding and FIH v Commission

(Case T-386/14 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Banking sector - Aid granted to FIH in the form of a transfer of its impaired assets to a new subsidiary and the subsequent purchase thereof by the body responsible for guaranteeing financial stability - State aid for banks during the crisis - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Admissibility - Calculation of the amount of the aid - Manifest error of assessment)

(2019/C 399/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: FIH Holding A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark) and FIH A/S, previously FIH Erhvervsbank A/S (Copenhagen) (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC (OJ 2014 L 357, p. 89).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by FIH Holding A/S and FIH A/S. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by FIH Holding A/S and FIH A/S.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Achemos Grupė and Achema v Commission

(Case T-417/16) (1)

(State aid - Aid to Klaipėdos Nafta for the construction and management of an LNG terminal at the Klaipėda Seaport - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Article 106(2) TFEU - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Decision not to raise any objections - Security of supply - Service of general economic interest)

(2019/C 399/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Achemos Grupė UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) and Achema AB (Jonava, Lithuania) (represented initially by R. Martens and C. Maczkovics, and subsequently by R. Martens and V. Ostrovskis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, N. Kuplewatzky and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented initially by D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Dzikovič, and subsequently by R. Dzikovič, acting as Agents), Klaipėdos Nafta AB (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by: K. Kačerauskas and V. Vaitkutė Pavan, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7884 final of 20 November 2013, whereby State aid SA.36740 (2013/NN) granted by Lithuania to Klaipėdos Nafta was declared compatible with the internal market (OJ 2016, C 161, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Achemos Grupė UAB and Achema AB to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Achemos Grupė UAB and Achema AB to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania and Klaipėdos Nafta AB to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania and Klaipėdos Nafta AB to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — FV v Council

(Case T-153/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Staff reports - 2014 and 2015 appraisal exercises - Interest in bringing proceedings - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

(2019/C 399/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FV (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the applicant’s staff reports for the periods from 1 January to 31 December 2014 and from 1 January to 31 December 2015, which were adopted definitively on 5 December 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders FV to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders FV to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — WhiteWave Services v EUIPO — Fernandes (VeGa one)

(Case T-176/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark VeGa one - International registration designating the European Union in respect of the earlier word mark Vegas - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 399/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WhiteWave Services, Inc. (Broomfield, Colorado, United States), authorised to replace Sequel Naturals ULC (represented by: H. Lindström, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Carlos Fernandes (Groß-Umstadt, Germany) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 2466/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Carlos Fernandes and Sequel Naturals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Grants WhiteWave Services, Inc. leave to replace Sequel Naturals ULC as applicant; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Grants WhiteWave Services, Inc. leave to replace Sequel Naturals ULC as applicant;

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

2.

Dismisses the action;

| 3. | Orders WhiteWave Services to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders WhiteWave Services to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 4. | Orders Mr Carlos Fernandes to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Carlos Fernandes to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry v Commission

(Case T-228/17) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings, whether or not finished, originating in China and Taiwan - Imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties - Normal value - Adjustments - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 399/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd (Wenzhou, China) (represented by: S. Hirsbrunner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, N. Kuplewatzky and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/141 of 26 January 2017 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings, whether or not finished, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ 2017 L 22, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-433/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Court of Justice of the European Union - Documents held by an institution in the exercise of its administrative functions - Application for access submitted by a former judge of the General Court - Partial refusal of access - Non-contractual liability of the European Union)

(2019/C 399/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Franklin Dehousse (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram, Á. Almendros Manzano and V. Hanley-Emilsson, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 18 and 22 May 2017 rejecting the applications for access to certain documents, submitted by the applicant on 27 January 2017 and 14 December 2016 respectively, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the non-material damage the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the alleged misconduct on the part of the Court of Justice of the European Union when it refused to grant his applications for access to information, submitted between 15 July and 10 August 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 18 May 2017 which rejected the second confirmatory application for access to certain documents made by Mr Franklin Dehousse, to the extent that that decision refused access to ‘exchanges, in both directions, between President Skouris, or his Head of Cabinet, and all German public authorities between 2011 and 2015 inclusive’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 18 May 2017 which rejected the second confirmatory application for access to certain documents made by Mr Franklin Dehousse, to the extent that that decision refused access to ‘exchanges, in both directions, between President Skouris, or his Head of Cabinet, and all German public authorities between 2011 and 2015 inclusive’;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-476/17) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance diflubenzuron - Review of approval - Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Rights of the defence - Ultra vires - Manifest error of assessment - Procedure for renewal of approval - Article 14 of Regulation No 1107/2009 - Imposition, in the context of the review procedure, of additional restrictions limiting the use of the active substance at issue without waiting for the outcome of the renewal procedure - Proportionality)

(2019/C 399/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, I. Naglis and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/855 of 18 May 2017 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance diflubenzuron (OJ 2017 L 128, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-629/17) (1)

(ERDF - ESF - Reduction in financial assistance - Public procurement - Article 99(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC - Specific exclusion - Public service contracts for the acquisition, development, production or co-production of programme material intended for broadcasting by broadcasters)

(2019/C 399/52)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and K. Rudzińska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 4682 final of 6 July 2017 cancelling part of the European Social Fund assistance for the operational programme Education for Competitiveness under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic and part of the European Regional Development Fund assistance for the operational programmes Research and Development for Innovations under the ‘Convergence’ objective in the Czech Republic and Technical Assistance under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — BTC v Commission

(Case T-786/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement entered into in the context of the eTEN framework programme, relating to trans-European telecommunications networks - ‘SafeChemo’ project - Investigation report from OLAF finding certain expenses incurred to be ineligible - Repayment in part of the sums paid - Counterclaim)

(2019/C 399/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BTC Srl (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: L. von Lutterotti and A. Frei, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment (i) of Commission Decision Ares(2017) 4709558 of 27 September 2017 demanding repayment of an amount paid to the applicant pursuant to Agreement C046311 for the financing of the ‘ePrescription and Automation for a Safe Management of Cytostatistics’ project, entered into in the context of the eTEN programme, relating to trans-European telecommunications networks, (ii) of the Commission’s letter Ares(2017) 4790311 of 2 October 2017 communicating Debit Note No 3241712708, and (iii) of Debit Note No 3241712708, and, second, application under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission’s demand for repayment is unfounded and a counterclaim seeking an order against the applicant for repayment of an amount wrongfully paid under that agreement.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action brought by BTC Srl; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action brought by BTC Srl;

| 2. | Orders BTC to pay the Commission the principal sum of EUR 380 989.49, plus default interest at the rate of 3.5% from 17 November 2017 until payment in full of that amount; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BTC to pay the Commission the principal sum of EUR 380 989.49, plus default interest at the rate of 3.5% from 17 November 2017 until payment in full of that amount;

| 3. | Orders BTC to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders BTC to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — FV v Council

(Case T-27/18 RENV) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Staff report - 2013 appraisal exercise - Interest in bringing proceedings - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

(2019/C 399/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FV (represented by: initially, L. Levi and, subsequently, É. Boigelot, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders FV to pay the costs incurred in Case F-40/15 and those incurred in the present proceedings on referral; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders FV to pay the costs incurred in Case F-40/15 and those incurred in the present proceedings on referral;

| 3. | orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred in Case T-639/16 P. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred in Case T-639/16 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union as Case F-40/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Venezuela v Council

(Case T-65/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela - Action brought by a third State - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 399/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by P. Mahnič and L. Ozola, and subsequently by P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment, first, of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2017 L 295, p. 21), secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation 2017/2063 (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), and, thirdly, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10), in so far as their provisions concern the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 134 du 16.4.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Manéa v CdT

(Case T-225/18) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary members of staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew the applicant’s contract - Withdrawal of the decision and adoption of a new decision refusing renewal with effect from the date of the first decision - Liability)

(2019/C 399/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Camelia Manéa (Echternach, Luxembourg) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas and M. Bertha, lawyers)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: J. Rikkert and M. Garnier, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the CdT’s decision of 29 May 2017 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract, second, an order that the CdT is to reinstate her within the CdT, and, third, compensation for the material and non-material damage resulting from the loss of permanent employment and from the CdT’s decision of 12 November 2015 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Camelia Manéa to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Camelia Manéa to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Azarov v Council

(Case T-286/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2019/C 399/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: A. Egger and G. Lansky, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Bauerschmidt and P. Mahni, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Unifarco v EUIPO — GD Tecnologie Interdisciplinari Farmaceutiche (TRICOPID)

(Case T-359/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark TRICOPID - Earlier national figurative mark TRICODIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 399/58)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Unifarco SpA (Santa Giustina, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and J. Graffer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: GD Tecnologie Interdisciplinari Farmaceutiche Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Pepe and M. Farinola, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2018 (Case R 2150/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between GD Tecnologie Interdisciplinari Farmaceutiche and Unifarco.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Unifarco SpA to pay the costs, including those incurred by GD Tecnologie Interdisciplinari Farmaceutiche Srl before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Unifarco SpA to pay the costs, including those incurred by GD Tecnologie Interdisciplinari Farmaceutiche Srl before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — WI v Commission

(Case T-379/18) (1)

(Civil service - Pensions - Survivor’s pension - Registered non-marital partnership - Refusal to grant - Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulation - Access to civil marriage - Principle of sound administration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Exceptional Circumstances)

(2019/C 399/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WI (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFUE for the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 16 August 2017 not to grant a survivor’s pension to the applicant, of the decision of 13 September 2017 in so far as it refused to grant a survivor’s pension to the applicant and of the decision of 9 March 2018 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders WI to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders WI to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — TrekStor v EUIPO (Theatre)

(Case T-399/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Theatre - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 399/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong-Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, M. Alber and N. Willich, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2018 (Case R 2238/2017-2) relating to an application for registration of the word sign Theatre as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders TrekStor Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TrekStor Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO — Rubio Snacks (Tia Rosa)

(Case T-464/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Tia Rosa - Earlier national figurative mark TIA ROSA - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 399/61)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rubio Snacks, SL (Bullas, Spain) (represented by I. Temiño Ceniceros and J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2018 (Case R 2739/2017-5), relating to opposition proceeding between Rubio Snacks and Grupo Bimbo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — IRF (MediWell)

(Case T-502/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MediWell - Earlier national word mark WELL AND WELL and earlier national figurative mark well & well LES PHARMACIENS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 399/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: IRF s. r. o. (Bratislava, Slovakia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2018 (Case R 6/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Pharmadom and IRF.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Pharmadom to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/52

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — XI v Commission

(Case T-528/18) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Occupational disease - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Reply to the complaint containing medical data - Medical confidentiality - Request for deletion of that data - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Right to privacy - Liability)

(2019/C 399/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: XI (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, B. Mongin and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 May 2018 (Case R/56/18), rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance, based on Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, secondly, compensation for the harm which the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the European Commission to pay XI the sum of EUR 2 500; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Commission to pay XI the sum of EUR 2 500;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/53

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Aroma Essence v EUIPO — Refan Bulgaria (washing sponge)

(Case T-532/18) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a washing sponge - Earlier designs - Grounds for invalidity - Examination by the Board of Appeal of its own motion of the facts constituting disclosure - Burden of proof on the invalidity applicant - Requirements relating to the reproduction of the prior design)

(2019/C 399/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aroma Essence Ltd (Kazanlak, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Nastev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, Agents,)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Refan Bulgaria OOD (Trud, Bulgaria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2018 (Case R 1197/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Aroma Essence and Refan Bulgaria.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aroma Essence Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aroma Essence Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/54

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — YL v Commission

(Case T-545/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2017 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 7 with effect from 1 January 2017 - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Article 9(3) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Misuse of powers - Disciplinary measure)

(2019/C 399/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: YL (represented by: P. Yon and B. de Lapasse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: L. Radu Bouyon and R. Striani, and subsequently by: L. Radu Bouyon and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU, first, for annulment of the Commission Decision, communicated to the staff of that institution on 13 November 2017, not to promote the applicant to grade AD 7 during the 2017 promotion procedure, second, for promotion of the applicant to grade AD 7 with effect from 1 January 2017 and, third, for compensation for the damage which the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

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

2.

Orders YL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/54

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Rose Gesellschaft v EUIPO — Iviton (TON JONES)

(Case T-633/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark TON JONES - Earlier national and international figurative marks Jones - Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 10 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2019/C 399/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rose Gesellschaft mbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. Kornfeld, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Iviton s. r. o. (Prešov, Slovakia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 (Case R 2136/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Magda Rose GmbH & Co. KG and Iviton.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rose Gesellschaft mbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rose Gesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/55

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Geske v EUIPO (revolutionary air pulse technology)

(Case T-634/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark revolutionary air pulse technology - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 399/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2018 (Case R 2721/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign revolutionary air pulse technology as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Mr André Geske to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/56

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Società agricola Giusti Dal Col v EUIPO — DMC (GIUSTI WINE)

(Case T-678/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Application for protection of the international word mark GIUSTI WINE - Earlier national figurative mark DeGIUSTI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 399/68)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Società agricola Giusti Dal Col Srl (Nervesa della Battaglia, Italy) (represented by: M. Pizzigati and A. Mayr, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: DMC Srl (San Vendemiano, Italy) (represented by: B. Osti and C. Spagnolo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2018 (Case R 1154/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between DMC and Società agricola Giusti Dal Col.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Società agricola Giusti Dal Col Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Società agricola Giusti Dal Col Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/56

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Showroom v EUIPO — E-Gab (SHOWROOM)

(Case T-679/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark SHOWROOM - Earlier EU figurative mark SHOWROOM86 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 399/69)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Showroom sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Janicka-Kapłon, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: E-Gab NV (Ternat, Belgium)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2018 (Case R 1834/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between E-Gab and Showroom.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Showroom sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Showroom sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/57

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — La Caixa v EUIPO — Imagic Vision (imagin bank)

(Case T-761/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark imagin bank - Earlier national figurative mark imagic - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 399/70)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fundación bancaria caixa d’estalvis i pensions de Barcelona La Caixa (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, P. Román Maestre, D. Liern Cendrero, D. Gabarre Armengol and J.L. Rodríguez-Fuensalida, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Imagic Vision, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 (Case R 1954/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Imagic Vision and Fundación bancaria caixa d’estalvis i pensions de Barcelona La Caixa.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 October 2018 (Case R 1954/2017-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 October 2018 (Case R 1954/2017-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by Fundación bancaria caixa d’estalvis i pensions de Barcelona La Caixa. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by Fundación bancaria caixa d’estalvis i pensions de Barcelona La Caixa.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/58

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Orkla Foods Danmark v EUIPO (PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD)

(Case T-34/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 399/71)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Orkla Foods Danmark A/S (Taastrup, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hansen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. García Murillo and J.F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2018 (Case R 309/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Orkla Foods Danmark A/S to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Orkla Foods Danmark A/S to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/59

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Haswani v Council

(Case T-231/15 RENV) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Modification of the application - Admissibility - Need to modify pleas in law and arguments - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any foundation in law)

(2019/C 399/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: George Haswani (Yabroud, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Sikora-Kaleda and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the form or order sought by the defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Havas, R. Tricot and A. Bouquet, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 41), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 10), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 82), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/828 of 28 May 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 3), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30), in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant alleges that he suffered as a result of those acts.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr George Haswani shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Cases C-313/17 P and T-231/15 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr George Haswani shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Cases C-313/17 P and T-231/15 RENV.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs in Cases C-313/17 P and T-231/15 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs in Cases C-313/17 P and T-231/15 RENV.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/60

---

Order of the General Court of 17 June 2019 — BS v Parliament

(Case T-593/18) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Notice of modification of pension entitlements - Dependent child allowance - Education allowance - Child suffering from an infirmity preventing him from earning a livelihood - Actual maintenance of the child - Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Recovery of overpayments - Right to good administration - Action for annulment)

(2019/C 399/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BS (represented by: M. Maes and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: D. Boytha and T. Lazian, and subsequently by T. Lazian and C. González Argüelles, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the notice of modification of the Applicant’s pension entitlements of 10 August 2017 issued by the Parliament and, secondly, ‘so far as necessary’ of the decision to recover the purported overpayment of EUR 1 589,16 in respect of the months of September, October and November 2017 and of EUR 4 815,16, as shown on the pension slip for December 2017.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | BS shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

BS shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/60

---

Order of the General Court of 16 September 2019 — ZH v ECHA

(Case T-617/18) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - 2016 staff report - Sick leave - Claim for compensation - Complaint brought after expiry of the three-month period prescribed by Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Force majeure - Excusable error - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2019/C 399/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, T. Zbihlej and C.-M. Bergerat, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the applicant’s 2016 staff report and, second, compensation for the non-material damage which she claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | ZH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ZH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/61

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — ruwido austria v EUIPO (transparent pairing)

(Case T-649/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark transparent pairing - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2019/C 399/75)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ruwido austria GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Austria) (represented by: A. Ginzburg, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2018 (Case R 2487/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign transparent pairing as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | ruwido austria GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ruwido austria GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/62

---

Order of the General Court of 16 September 2019 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-703/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - European Social Fund - Operational programme ‘Knowledge Education Development’ - Letter notifying a final audit report - Act not amenable to review - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 399/76)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFUE for the annulment of the decision of the Commission allegedly contained in its letter of 17 September 2018 notifying the Republic of Poland the final audit report relating to the operational programme ‘Knowledge Education Development’.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | It is not necessary to adjudicate on the Czech Republic’s application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is not necessary to adjudicate on the Czech Republic’s application to intervene.

| 3. | The Republic of Poland and the European Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Republic of Poland and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

| 4. | The Czech Republic shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Czech Republic shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/62

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Cham Holding and Bena Properties v Council

(Case T-55/19) (1)

(Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)

(2019/C 399/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Cham Holding Co. SA (Damascis, Syria) and Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicants.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Cham Holding Co. SA and Bena Properties Co. SA shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Cham Holding Co. SA and Bena Properties Co. SA shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/63

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

(Case T-56/19) (1)

(Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)

(2019/C 399/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/64

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-57/19) (1)

(Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)

(2019/C 399/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Rami Makhlouf shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Rami Makhlouf shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/65

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Othman v Council

(Case T-58/19) (1)

(Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)

(2019/C 399/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Razan Othman shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Razan Othman shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/65

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-59/19) (1)

(Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)

(2019/C 399/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Ehab Makhlouf shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Ehab Makhlouf shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/66

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council

(Case T-61/19) (1)

(Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)

(2019/C 399/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Drex Technologies SA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Drex Technologies SA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/67

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

(Case T-62/19) (1)

(Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)

(2019/C 399/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Almashreq Investment Fund shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Almashreq Investment Fund shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/67

---

Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO (LA PASSIATA)

(Case T-70/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 399/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2018 (Case R 928/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Passi and Nosio.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Nosio SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Nosio SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/68

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Souruh v Council

(Case T-137/19) (1)

(Action for damages - Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of jurisdiction)

(2019/C 399/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018, amending Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018, L 131, p. 16), and its subsequent implementing acts, and following Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019, amending Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Souruh SA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Souruh SA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/69

---

Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (PASSIATA)

(Case T-142/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 399/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2018 (Case R 927/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Passi and Nosio.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Nosio SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Nosio SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/69

---

Order of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Puma v EUIPO (SOFTFOAM)

(Case T-182/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark SOFTFOAM - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2019/C 399/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2019 (Case R 1399/2018-2), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign SOFTFOAM as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Puma SE shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Puma SE shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/70

---

Action brought on 31 July 2019 — Sarantos and Others v Parliament and Commission

(Case T-547/19)

(2019/C 399/88)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Archimandrite Sarantis Sarantos (Marousi, Greece) and six other applicants (represented by: C. Papasotiriou, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the regulation of the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Union of 20 June 2019 (2018/0104/COD, Lex 1939/PE-CONS 70/19) on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the regulation of the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Union of 20 June 2019 (2018/0104/COD, Lex 1939/PE-CONS 70/19) on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement; (1)

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

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging that the contested regulation adversely affects human dignity, private life and personal freedom, as well as the right to protection of personal data and to express consent for any processing of such data. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging that the contested regulation adversely affects human dignity, private life and personal freedom, as well as the right to protection of personal data and to express consent for any processing of such data.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging that the contested regulation adversely affects the applicants’ religious conscience, in breach, inter alia, of Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging that the contested regulation adversely affects the applicants’ religious conscience, in breach, inter alia, of Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging that, by making electronic identity mandatory without citizens’ prior consent, the contested regulation infringes the applicants’ right to object on the particular aforementioned grounds of religious conscience, in breach of Article 10(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging that, by making electronic identity mandatory without citizens’ prior consent, the contested regulation infringes the applicants’ right to object on the particular aforementioned grounds of religious conscience, in breach of Article 10(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging that, by adversely affecting the applicants’ religious conscience, the contested regulation at the same time also adversely affects their human dignity since religious conscience is a fundamental expression thereof, in breach of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging that, by adversely affecting the applicants’ religious conscience, the contested regulation at the same time also adversely affects their human dignity since religious conscience is a fundamental expression thereof, in breach of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1157 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement (OJ 2019 L 188, p. 67).

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/71

---

Action brought on 9 September 2019 – Canon v Commission

(Case T-609/19)

(2019/C 399/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Canon Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: U. Soltész, W. Bosch, C. von Köckritz, K. Winkelmann, J. Schindler, D. Arts, W. Devroe, lawyers and M. Reynolds, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul European Commission decision C(2019) 4559 final of 27 June 2019 imposing fines for failing to notify a concentration in breach of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) and for implementing a concentration in breach of Article 7(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Case M.8179 - Canon/Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation, Article 14(2) procedure), as notified to the applicant on 1 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission decision C(2019) 4559 final of 27 June 2019 imposing fines for failing to notify a concentration in breach of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) and for implementing a concentration in breach of Article 7(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Case M.8179 - Canon/Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation, Article 14(2) procedure), as notified to the applicant on 1 July 2019;

| — | in the alternative, annul or substantially reduce the fines imposed on it; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul or substantially reduce the fines imposed on it;

| — | 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of law by misapplying the legal test for the assessment of Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.






  — | It is argued that the Commission ignores the existing case-law by relying on an unprecedented and unsupported concept of ‘partial implementation of a single concentration’. In particular, the Commission’s assessment does not establish that the interim transaction in question contributed to a lasting change of control over the target in the way required by the case-law. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of law by misapplying the legal test for the assessment of Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

—

It is argued that the Commission ignores the existing case-law by relying on an unprecedented and unsupported concept of ‘partial implementation of a single concentration’. In particular, the Commission’s assessment does not establish that the interim transaction in question contributed to a lasting change of control over the target in the way required by the case-law.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that, although no intent or negligence on the part of the applicant was demonstrated, the Commission imposed a fine on the applicant in violation of Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, the principle of nulla poena sine lege and legitimate expectations, the principle of proportionality and the principle of concurrent offences. The applicant therefore requests the Court to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and Article 261 TFEU to annul the decision regarding the fines entirely or reduce them significantly. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that, although no intent or negligence on the part of the applicant was demonstrated, the Commission imposed a fine on the applicant in violation of Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, the principle of nulla poena sine lege and legitimate expectations, the principle of proportionality and the principle of concurrent offences. The applicant therefore requests the Court to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and Article 261 TFEU to annul the decision regarding the fines entirely or reduce them significantly.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated essential procedural requirements. By denying the applicant the opportunity to comment on new arguments and facts/evidence in a formal reply to an additional supplementary statement of objections or letter of facts and during another oral hearing, it is argued that the Commission violated Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and the applicant’s right of defence. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated essential procedural requirements. By denying the applicant the opportunity to comment on new arguments and facts/evidence in a formal reply to an additional supplementary statement of objections or letter of facts and during another oral hearing, it is argued that the Commission violated Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and the applicant’s right of defence.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/72

---

Action brought on 10 September 2019 – UPL Europe and Aceto Agricultural Chemical v Commission

(Case T-612/19)

(2019/C 399/90)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: UPL Europe Ltd (Warrington Cheshire, United Kingdom) and Aceto Agricultural Chemical Corp. Ltd (Port Washington, United States) (represented by: C. Mereu and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/989 of 17 June 2019; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/989 of 17 June 2019; (1)

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted further to manifest errors of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted further to manifest errors of assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation results from a procedure during which the applicants’ rights of defence have not been respected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation results from a procedure during which the applicants’ rights of defence have not been respected.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the precautionary principle. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the precautionary principle.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/989 of 17 June 2019 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance chlorpropham, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 160, p. 11).

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/73

---

Action brought on 17 September 2019 – KF v SatCen

(Case T-619/19)

(2019/C 399/91)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KF (represented by: A. Kunst, lawyer, and N. Macaulay, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Satellite Centre

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Director of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) of 3 July 2019, notified to the applicant on 8 July 2019, to restart the administrative investigation in relation to her conduct and find that SatCen has failed to comply with the judgment of 25 October 2018 of the General Court in KF v The European Union Satellite Centre (Case T-286/15, EU:T:2018:718), infringing Article 266 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Director of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) of 3 July 2019, notified to the applicant on 8 July 2019, to restart the administrative investigation in relation to her conduct and find that SatCen has failed to comply with the judgment of 25 October 2018 of the General Court in KF v The European Union Satellite Centre (Case T-286/15, EU:T:2018:718), infringing Article 266 TFEU;

| — | annul the decision of the Director of SatCen rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint to the Director of SatCen of 2 August 2019 against the decision of 3 July 2019, notified to her on 9 August 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Director of SatCen rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint to the Director of SatCen of 2 August 2019 against the decision of 3 July 2019, notified to her on 9 August 2019;

| — | order SatCen to pay the applicant full and fair compensation arising from the said judgment in Case T-286/15 in respect of the material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order SatCen to pay the applicant full and fair compensation arising from the said judgment in Case T-286/15 in respect of the material harm suffered;

| — | order SatCen to compensate the applicant for the material and immaterial harm suffered as a result of the decision to restart the administrative investigation, assessed provisionally on an ex aequo et bono basis at EUR 30 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order SatCen to compensate the applicant for the material and immaterial harm suffered as a result of the decision to restart the administrative investigation, assessed provisionally on an ex aequo et bono basis at EUR 30 000;

| — | order SatCen to pay interest on the unjustified late payment of damages in respect of non-material harm of EUR 10 000 as ordered in the said judgment in Case T-286/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

order SatCen to pay interest on the unjustified late payment of damages in respect of non-material harm of EUR 10 000 as ordered in the said judgment in Case T-286/15;

| — | declare Article 28 and Annex X of the SatCen Staff Regulations, the provisions on the Appeals Board, inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare Article 28 and Annex X of the SatCen Staff Regulations, the provisions on the Appeals Board, inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU;

| — | order SatCen to pay the applicant’s costs, together with interest of 8 %. |
| --- | --- |

—

order SatCen to pay the applicant’s costs, together with interest of 8 %.

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 an infringement of the authority of judicial proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the authority of judicial proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 266 TFEU and the right to sound administration and the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 266 TFEU and the right to sound administration and the duty of care.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/74

---

Action brought on 16 September 2019 – Ace of spades v EUIPO – Krupp and Borrmann (Shape of Champagne rosé bottle)

(Case T-620/19)

(2019/C 399/92)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ace of spades Holdings LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerhard Ernst Krupp (Munich, Germany) and Elmar Borrmann (Reith, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of Champagne rosé bottle) – Application for registration No 16 252 629

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2019 in Case R 1/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | upheld the present Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

upheld the present Appeal;

| — | annul the contested decision, and/or set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Articles 8(1) (b) EUTMR and 8(5) EUTMR and enter a finding to the effect that there does exist likelihood of confusion between the confronted trademarks; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, and/or set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Articles 8(1) (b) EUTMR and 8(5) EUTMR and enter a finding to the effect that there does exist likelihood of confusion between the confronted trademarks;

| — | order the defendant (and intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant (and intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/75

---

Action brought on 16 September 2019 – Ace of spades v EUIPO – Krupp and Borrmann (Shape of Champagne Grande reserve bottle)

(Case T-621/19)

(2019/C 399/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ace of spades Holdings LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerhard Ernst Krupp (Munich, Germany) and Elmar Borrmann (Reith, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of Champagne Grande reserve bottle) – Application for registration No 16 252 637

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2019 in Case R 2/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | upheld the present Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

upheld the present Appeal;

| — | annul the contested decision, and/or set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Articles 8(1) (b) EUTMR and 8(5) EUTMR and enter a finding to the effect that there does exist likelihood of confusion between the confronted trademarks; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, and/or set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Articles 8(1) (b) EUTMR and 8(5) EUTMR and enter a finding to the effect that there does exist likelihood of confusion between the confronted trademarks;

| — | order the defendant (and intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant (and intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/76

---

Action brought on 16 September 2019 – Ace of spades v EUIPO – Krupp and Borrmann (Shape of Champagne prestige bottle)

(Case T-622/19)

(2019/C 399/94)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ace of spades Holdings LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerhard Ernst Krupp (Munich, Germany) and Elmar Borrmann (Reith, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of Champagne prestige bottle) – Application for registration No 16 255 821

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2019 in Case R 3/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | upheld the present Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

upheld the present Appeal;

| — | annul the contested decision, and/or set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Articles 8(1) (b) EUTMR and 8(5) EUTMR and enter a finding to the effect that there does exist likelihood of confusion between the confronted trademarks; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, and/or set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Articles 8(1) (b) EUTMR and 8(5) EUTMR and enter a finding to the effect that there does exist likelihood of confusion between the confronted trademarks;

| — | order the defendant (and intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant (and intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/77

---

Action brought on 17 September 2019 — Welter’s v EUIPO (Shape of a handgrip with bristles)

(Case T-624/19)

(2019/C 399/95)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Welter’s Co. Ltd (Touliu, Taiwan) (represented by: T. Meinke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Representation of tridimensional European Union mark (Shape of a handgrip with bristles) in white — Application for registration No 17 902 351

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2019 in Case R 2428/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant disputes the legality of the decision at issue and claims that the Court should order EUIPO to enter the mark applied for in the register of EU trade marks also in respect of the following further goods in Class 21: brushes; material for brush-making; toothpicks; combs; toothbrushes; interdental brushes for cleaning the teeth.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/77

---

Action brought on 20 September 2019 — L. Oliva Torras v EUIPO — Mecánica del Frío (Vehicle couplings)

(Case T-629/19)

(2019/C 399/96)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: L. Oliva Torras, SA (Manresa, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mecánica del Frío, SL (Cornellá de Llobregat, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Holder of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design (Vehicle couplings) — Community design No 2 217 588-0004

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 July 2019 in Case R 1399/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | With regard to the ground of invalidity: uphold the findings of the Board of Appeal on this point and allow the proceedings seeking invalidity of a Community design in respect of each of Articles 4 to 9 of the Regulation on Community designs, under ‘Requirements for protection’. |
| --- | --- |

—

With regard to the ground of invalidity: uphold the findings of the Board of Appeal on this point and allow the proceedings seeking invalidity of a Community design in respect of each of Articles 4 to 9 of the Regulation on Community designs, under ‘Requirements for protection’.

| — | With regard to the precedence on which the claims of lack of novelty and individual character are based: the applicant submits that the comparison conducted by the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal, based solely on image A (a render from the catalogue), is incorrect, and requests that the comparison be conducted taking into account all the evidence submitted and the specific circumstances of the present case. |
| --- | --- |

—

With regard to the precedence on which the claims of lack of novelty and individual character are based: the applicant submits that the comparison conducted by the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal, based solely on image A (a render from the catalogue), is incorrect, and requests that the comparison be conducted taking into account all the evidence submitted and the specific circumstances of the present case.

| — | The substance: lack of novelty of the Community design sought. The applicant requests that the contested design be declared invalid since it is almost identical to and therefore consists in an unauthorised, practically identical imitation of the design used in trade by the applicant. Consequently, the contested design lacks the novelty required to acquire protection by means of the registration of a Community design. |
| --- | --- |

—

The substance: lack of novelty of the Community design sought. The applicant requests that the contested design be declared invalid since it is almost identical to and therefore consists in an unauthorised, practically identical imitation of the design used in trade by the applicant. Consequently, the contested design lacks the novelty required to acquire protection by means of the registration of a Community design.

| — | The substance: lack of individual character of the Community design sought. The applicant requests that the contested design be declared invalid on the ground of lack of individual character with respect to the designs disclosed earlier by L. Oliva Torras, S.A., bearing in mind the low degree of creative freedom allowed by the technical functionality of the part which must be mounted on a specific vehicle engine, the characteristics of an informed user and the similarities between the parts compared. |
| --- | --- |

—

The substance: lack of individual character of the Community design sought. The applicant requests that the contested design be declared invalid on the ground of lack of individual character with respect to the designs disclosed earlier by L. Oliva Torras, S.A., bearing in mind the low degree of creative freedom allowed by the technical functionality of the part which must be mounted on a specific vehicle engine, the characteristics of an informed user and the similarities between the parts compared.

| — | The substance: existence of exclusions to the protection of a Community design under Article 8 of the Regulation on Community designs. The applicant requests that the contested design be declared invalid on the ground that it is subject to the prohibition laid down in Article 8(1) and (2), as the appearance of the design is dictated solely by its technical function, and that it be declared invalid on the ground that it is subject to the absolute prohibition under Article 4 of the Regulation on Community designs since it constitutes a component part of a complex product. |
| --- | --- |

—

The substance: existence of exclusions to the protection of a Community design under Article 8 of the Regulation on Community designs. The applicant requests that the contested design be declared invalid on the ground that it is subject to the prohibition laid down in Article 8(1) and (2), as the appearance of the design is dictated solely by its technical function, and that it be declared invalid on the ground that it is subject to the absolute prohibition under Article 4 of the Regulation on Community designs since it constitutes a component part of a complex product.

| — | The substance: conflict of the Community design with Article 9 of the Regulation on Community designs. The applicant requests that the decision of the Board of Appeal be upheld on that point. |
| --- | --- |

—

The substance: conflict of the Community design with Article 9 of the Regulation on Community designs. The applicant requests that the decision of the Board of Appeal be upheld on that point.

| — | In accordance with Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, under ‘General rules as to allocation of costs’, the applicant requests that the unsuccessful party be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. |
| --- | --- |

—

In accordance with Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, under ‘General rules as to allocation of costs’, the applicant requests that the unsuccessful party be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

| — | In accordance with Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the applicant requests that the case is joined with Case T-100/19, the oral part of which has been requested by the applicant and is awaiting decision. In accordance with Article 68, two or more cases concerning the same subject matter may at any time, either of the General Court’s own motion or on application by a main party, be joined, on account of the connection between them, for the purposes, alternatively or cumulatively, of the written or oral part of the procedure or of the decision which closes the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

In accordance with Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the applicant requests that the case is joined with Case T-100/19, the oral part of which has been requested by the applicant and is awaiting decision. In accordance with Article 68, two or more cases concerning the same subject matter may at any time, either of the General Court’s own motion or on application by a main party, be joined, on account of the connection between them, for the purposes, alternatively or cumulatively, of the written or oral part of the procedure or of the decision which closes the proceedings.

Plea in law

Infringement of Articles 4 to 9 and 61 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/79

---

Action brought on 19 September 2019 — FC v EASO

(Case T-634/19)

(2019/C 399/97)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: FC (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of EASO under No EASO/ED/2019/309 dated 20 June 2019, by which it rejected the applicant’s complaint of 21 February 2019 pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of EASO under No EASO/ED/2019/309 dated 20 June 2019, by which it rejected the applicant’s complaint of 21 February 2019 pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of EASO under No EASO/ED/2018/365 dated 14 December 2018 concerning the applicant’s suspension, withholding of her remuneration and a prohibition on her having access to EASO’s facilities; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of EASO under No EASO/ED/2018/365 dated 14 December 2018 concerning the applicant’s suspension, withholding of her remuneration and a prohibition on her having access to EASO’s facilities;

| — | order EASO to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 6 504,00 to compensate for her material loss; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 6 504,00 to compensate for her material loss;

| — | order EASO to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 250 000,00 to compensate for her non-material harm and harm to her health; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 250 000,00 to compensate for her non-material harm and harm to her health;

| — | order EASO to pay all the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to pay all the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | The first plea alleges that the contested decisions are vitiated because they infringe the applicant’s right to good administration, in particular as given specific expression in the principles of impartiality and objectivity, and the applicant’s substantive right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea alleges that the contested decisions are vitiated because they infringe the applicant’s right to good administration, in particular as given specific expression in the principles of impartiality and objectivity, and the applicant’s substantive right to be heard.

| 2. | The second plea alleges that, by the way in which the contested decisions were made public, there was a violation of the applicant’s personal data, of the presumption of her innocence and of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea alleges that, by the way in which the contested decisions were made public, there was a violation of the applicant’s personal data, of the presumption of her innocence and of the principle of proportionality.

| 3. | The third plea alleges that a manifest error of assessment is committed in the contested decisions and that the reasons stated are inadequate. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea alleges that a manifest error of assessment is committed in the contested decisions and that the reasons stated are inadequate.

| 4. | The fourth plea alleges that the contested decisions adversely affect the applicant’s right of defence and, in essence, prevent her from exercising it. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth plea alleges that the contested decisions adversely affect the applicant’s right of defence and, in essence, prevent her from exercising it.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/80

---

Action brought on 24 September 2019 – Chemours Netherlands v ECHA

(Case T-636/19)

(2019/C 399/98)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chemours Netherlands BV (Dordrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and F. Mattioli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it includes 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides (covering any of their individual isomers and combinations thereof) in the candidate list of substances of very high concern as a substance of equivalent concern for human health and/or in so far as it includes 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides (covering any of their individual isomers and combinations thereof) in the candidate list as a substance of equivalent concern for the environment; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it includes 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides (covering any of their individual isomers and combinations thereof) in the candidate list of substances of very high concern as a substance of equivalent concern for human health and/or in so far as it includes 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides (covering any of their individual isomers and combinations thereof) in the candidate list as a substance of equivalent concern for the environment;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings; and |
| --- | --- |

—

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

| — | take such other or further measure as justice may require. |
| --- | --- |

—

take such other or further measure as justice may require.

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 Agency breached Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) and exceeded its competence under this provision, and manifestly erred in its assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Agency breached Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) and exceeded its competence under this provision, and manifestly erred in its assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality since it is not necessary or appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality since it is not necessary or appropriate.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/81

---

Action brought on 25 September 2019 – Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO – Carpathian Springs (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-637/19)

(2019/C 399/99)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: M. Maček, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carpathian Springs SA (Vatra Dornei, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of a bottle) – Application for registration No 14 979 959

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 August 2019 in Case R 317/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred to Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred to Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/82

---

Action brought on 25 September 2019 – Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO – Valvis Holding (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-638/19)

(2019/C 399/100)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: M. Maček, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valvis Holding SA (Bucharest, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of a bottle) – Application for registration No 14 979 942

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 August 2019 in Case R 649/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred to Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred to Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/83

---

Action brought on 26 September 2019 — IMG v Commission

(Case T-645/19)

(2019/C 399/101)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently:

| — | annul the Commission Decision of 18 July 2019 establishing measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 31 January 2019 in Joined Cases C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P, IMG v Commission (EU:C:2019:78); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Decision of 18 July 2019 establishing measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 31 January 2019 in Joined Cases C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P, IMG v Commission (EU:C:2019:78);

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for material and non-material harm; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for material and non-material harm;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, infringement of the principle of res judicata attaching to the judgment of 31 January 2019, International Management Group v Commission (C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P, EU:C:2019:78), infringement of the 2012 Financial Regulation and infringement of the principle of conferral of powers and the principle of legal certainty.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/83

---

Action brought on 26 September 2019 — Brands Up v EUIPO (Credit24)

(Case T-651/19)

(2019/C 399/102)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Brands Up OÜ (Tallin, Estonia) (represented by: M. Welin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Credit24’ — Application for registration No 17 941 316

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2019 in Case R 465/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | register the European Union trade mark No 17 941 316; |
| --- | --- |

—

register the European Union trade mark No 17 941 316;

| — | order that the word ‘doubtful’ be deleted from the EUIPO Examiner’s decision of 20 December 2018, p. 1; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the word ‘doubtful’ be deleted from the EUIPO Examiner’s decision of 20 December 2018, p. 1;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and consistency of case law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and consistency of case law.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/84

---

Action brought on 26 September 2019 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission

(Case T-652/19)

(2019/C 399/103)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Elevolution — Engenharia SA (Amadora, Portugal) (represented by: M. Marques Mendes, R. Campos, A. Dias Henriques, M. Troncoso Ferrer and C. García Fernández, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the action and annul the decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action and annul the decision in its entirety;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error in the European Commission’s decision of 12 July 2019, taken by the current Director of the Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DEVCO), document Ares(2019)4611765 — 16/07/2019, which excludes the applicant, for a period of three years, from public procurement and from grant award procedures financed by the European Development Found (EDF) under Council Regulation (EU) 2015/323, and ordering the publication of the factual circumstances of that exclusion information on the Commission’s website: | The applicant submits that the Commission erred in its decision as regards the factual circumstances, specifically as regards the delays in the execution of the work, which cannot be attributed to the applicant. The conciliation procedure provided for under the contract should be concluded, and the applicant cannot be criticised for the failure to set up an arbitration tribunal. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error in the European Commission’s decision of 12 July 2019, taken by the current Director of the Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DEVCO), document Ares(2019)4611765 — 16/07/2019, which excludes the applicant, for a period of three years, from public procurement and from grant award procedures financed by the European Development Found (EDF) under Council Regulation (EU) 2015/323, and ordering the publication of the factual circumstances of that exclusion information on the Commission’s website:

The applicant submits that the Commission erred in its decision as regards the factual circumstances, specifically as regards the delays in the execution of the work, which cannot be attributed to the applicant. The conciliation procedure provided for under the contract should be concluded, and the applicant cannot be criticised for the failure to set up an arbitration tribunal.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to provide adequate reasoning and infringement of the law, specifically Article 143(5) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to good administration: | The decision is vitiated by a failure to provide adequate reasoning because it does not enable the applicant to ascertain the analysis and conclusions of the compulsory prior adversarial procedure conducted by the panel under the Financial Regulation. In disregarding the prior adversarial procedure by not making any mention of its outcome, the decision also infringes the law by undermining and infringing Article 143 of the Financial Regulation, in particular paragraph 5, and it undermines the right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to provide adequate reasoning and infringement of the law, specifically Article 143(5) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to good administration:

The decision is vitiated by a failure to provide adequate reasoning because it does not enable the applicant to ascertain the analysis and conclusions of the compulsory prior adversarial procedure conducted by the panel under the Financial Regulation. In disregarding the prior adversarial procedure by not making any mention of its outcome, the decision also infringes the law by undermining and infringing Article 143 of the Financial Regulation, in particular paragraph 5, and it undermines the right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 109(1)(b) (up to 1 January 2016) and Article 106(1)(e) (as of 1 January 2016), and subsequently of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights: | For the purposes of the decision whether or not to exclude the applicant from the public procurement and grants procedures governed by Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877, the Commission is simultaneously judge and prosecutor. In a situation where the issue whether there is a breach of contract is yet to be determined, taking into consideration only the assertions of the Commission and/or the main contractor, and excluding those of the applicant, results in an infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, because it infringes the principle of equality of arms. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 109(1)(b) (up to 1 January 2016) and Article 106(1)(e) (as of 1 January 2016), and subsequently of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights:

For the purposes of the decision whether or not to exclude the applicant from the public procurement and grants procedures governed by Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877, the Commission is simultaneously judge and prosecutor. In a situation where the issue whether there is a breach of contract is yet to be determined, taking into consideration only the assertions of the Commission and/or the main contractor, and excluding those of the applicant, results in an infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, because it infringes the principle of equality of arms.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 136(3) of the Finance Regulation and the principle of proportionality as laid down in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights: | The Commission imposed the heaviest penalty provided for in Article 106(14)(c) of Regulation No 966/2012, as amended by Regulation 2015/1929, which is also the heaviest penalty provided for in Article 139 of the Financial Regulation. Bearing in mind all the matters of fact, and bearing in mind that the issue whether the applicant was in serious breach of the contract is an issue which is yet to be determined by a court, the imposition of the heaviest penalty provided for under Article 106(14)(c) of Regulation No 966/2012 implies an infringement of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 136(3) of the Finance Regulation and the principle of proportionality as laid down in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights:

The Commission imposed the heaviest penalty provided for in Article 106(14)(c) of Regulation No 966/2012, as amended by Regulation 2015/1929, which is also the heaviest penalty provided for in Article 139 of the Financial Regulation. Bearing in mind all the matters of fact, and bearing in mind that the issue whether the applicant was in serious breach of the contract is an issue which is yet to be determined by a court, the imposition of the heaviest penalty provided for under Article 106(14)(c) of Regulation No 966/2012 implies an infringement of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/85

---

Action brought on 30 September 2019 — FF v Commission

(Case T-653/19)

(2019/C 399/104)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FF (represented by: A. Fittante, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision of 31 July 2019 rejecting the applicant’s first application of 9 July 2019 seeking compensation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision of 31 July 2019 rejecting the applicant’s first application of 9 July 2019 seeking compensation;

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision of 20 August 2019 rejecting the application of 23 July 2019 for access to the Commission’s documents in which the applicant asks to consult the original of a photograph of a man whose leg has been amputated which was used as a health warning on the packaging of tobacco products in accordance with Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision of 20 August 2019 rejecting the application of 23 July 2019 for access to the Commission’s documents in which the applicant asks to consult the original of a photograph of a man whose leg has been amputated which was used as a health warning on the packaging of tobacco products in accordance with Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs and the expenses relating to the proceedings, while noting that the applicant has sought legal aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs and the expenses relating to the proceedings, while noting that the applicant has sought legal aid.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements as the decisions at issue fail to comply with the obligation to state reasons and, therefore, do not allow the applicant to understand the scope of the decision taken against him and to ensure that his interests are defended and do not allow a court to verify whether that decision is lawful. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements as the decisions at issue fail to comply with the obligation to state reasons and, therefore, do not allow the applicant to understand the scope of the decision taken against him and to ensure that his interests are defended and do not allow a court to verify whether that decision is lawful.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the treaties and every rule of law concerning the application of the latter, that is to say the body of rules of the European Union, and, in particular, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principles, the observance of which the European Union is obliged to ensure and which protect the right to protect one’s personal image, the right to respect for private and family life and the right to dignity. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the treaties and every rule of law concerning the application of the latter, that is to say the body of rules of the European Union, and, in particular, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principles, the observance of which the European Union is obliged to ensure and which protect the right to protect one’s personal image, the right to respect for private and family life and the right to dignity.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/86

---

Action brought on 30 September 2019 — FF v Commission

(Case T-654/19)

(2019/C 399/105)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FF (represented by: A. Fittante, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find that the European Commission has interfered with his right to honour, his right to personal and family life, his right to protect his personal image and his right to dignity by using his image without his permission as one of the photographs proposed by the Commission to be used as health warnings to be included on the packaging of tobacco products in accordance with Commission Delegated Directive 2014/109/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the European Commission has interfered with his right to honour, his right to personal and family life, his right to protect his personal image and his right to dignity by using his image without his permission as one of the photographs proposed by the Commission to be used as health warnings to be included on the packaging of tobacco products in accordance with Commission Delegated Directive 2014/109/EU;

| — | order that the use of the photograph at issue within the European Union cease immediately and that all tobacco products that are available for sale in the various establishments authorised to sell such products and contain the applicant’s image be withdrawn; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the use of the photograph at issue within the European Union cease immediately and that all tobacco products that are available for sale in the various establishments authorised to sell such products and contain the applicant’s image be withdrawn;

| — | grant the applicant the right to increase his claim for compensation for non-material and financial damage after the issuance of an expert’s report requested in a separate action and the communication by the European Commission of the amount of packaging sold in the European Union with the image at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the applicant the right to increase his claim for compensation for non-material and financial damage after the issuance of an expert’s report requested in a separate action and the communication by the European Commission of the amount of packaging sold in the European Union with the image at issue;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs and the expenses relating to the proceedings, while noting that the applicant has sought legal aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs and the expenses relating to the proceedings, while noting that the applicant has sought legal aid.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of his fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which grants to each person a right to respect for one’s dignity and the right to respect for one’s private and family life.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/87

---

Action brought on 27 September 2019 — Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission

(Case T-655/19)

(2019/C 399/106)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Ferriera Valsabbia SpA (Odolo, Italy), Valsabbia Investimenti SpA (Odolo) (represented by: D. Slater, Solicitor, G. Carnazza and D. Fosselard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision, in so far as it concerns them; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision, in so far as it concerns them;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, and of Article 14 and Article 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), and of Articles 11, 12 and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18)






  — | The applicants claim in that regard that the Commission failed to remedy the procedural defect found by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 21 September 2017, Ferriera Valsabbia, Valsabbia Investimenti and Alfa Acciai v Commission (joined Cases C-86/15 P and C-87/15 P, EU:C:2017:717), following which the Commission adopted the contested decision. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, and of Article 14 and Article 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), and of Articles 11, 12 and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18)

—

The applicants claim in that regard that the Commission failed to remedy the procedural defect found by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 21 September 2017, Ferriera Valsabbia, Valsabbia Investimenti and Alfa Acciai v Commission (joined Cases C-86/15 P and C-87/15 P, EU:C:2017:717), following which the Commission adopted the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging incorrect interpretation and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and infringement of Article 296 TFEU






  — | The applicants claim in that regard that the Commission considered that it was not empowered to assess the potential infringement of the principle that the duration of the procedure must be reasonable. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging incorrect interpretation and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and infringement of Article 296 TFEU

—

The applicants claim in that regard that the Commission considered that it was not empowered to assess the potential infringement of the principle that the duration of the procedure must be reasonable.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement and incorrect interpretation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with consequent infringement of the law and misuse of powers






  — | The applicants claim in that regard that the Commission had effectively breached the principle that the duration of the procedure must be reasonable. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement and incorrect interpretation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with consequent infringement of the law and misuse of powers

—

The applicants claim in that regard that the Commission had effectively breached the principle that the duration of the procedure must be reasonable.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296, incorrect and contrary reasoning and a manifest error of assessment






  — | The applicants claim in that regard that the readoption of the contested decision is justified by the Commission on the ground of an alleged balancing of the interests of the parties involved in the procedure, which, however, appears to be inadequate and, moreover, vitiated by numerous factual errors |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296, incorrect and contrary reasoning and a manifest error of assessment

—

The applicants claim in that regard that the readoption of the contested decision is justified by the Commission on the ground of an alleged balancing of the interests of the parties involved in the procedure, which, however, appears to be inadequate and, moreover, vitiated by numerous factual errors

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/88

---

Action brought on 27 September 2019 — Alfa Acciai v Commission

(Case T-656/19)

(2019/C 399/107)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alfa Acciai SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: D. Fosselard, G. Carnazza, lawyers, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those set out in Case T-655/19, Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/89 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/89

---

Action brought on 28 September 2019 — Feralpi v Commission

(Case T-657/19)

(2019/C 399/108)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Feralpi Holding SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in whole or in part, the Commission’s decision in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in whole or in part, the Commission’s decision in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | and/or annul, or at least reduce, the fine imposed on the applicant by the Commission’s decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

and/or annul, or at least reduce, the fine imposed on the applicant by the Commission’s decision;

| — | where necessary, declare Article 25(3) to (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to be unlawful and inapplicable; |
| --- | --- |

—

where necessary, declare Article 25(3) to (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to be unlawful and inapplicable;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against Commission Decision C(2019) 4969 final of 4 July 2019 concerning an infringement of Article 65 of ECSC Treaty — Case AT.37956 — Reinforcing bars, notified on 18 July 2019.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 41, 47 and 51 of the Charter, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Commission failed to assess the excessive duration of the proceedings before re-adopting, for the third time, the same decision imposing a fine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 41, 47 and 51 of the Charter, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Commission failed to assess the excessive duration of the proceedings before re-adopting, for the third time, the same decision imposing a fine.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 41, 47 and 51 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR and the obligation to state reasons, given that, if it had taken into account the duration of the proceedings and their specific characteristics, it would not have re-adopted, for the third time, the same decision imposing a fine. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 41, 47 and 51 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR and the obligation to state reasons, given that, if it had taken into account the duration of the proceedings and their specific characteristics, it would not have re-adopted, for the third time, the same decision imposing a fine.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR, the principle of proportionality and the obligation to state reasons, since, for the purposes of exercising its discretion of re-adoption, the Commission failed to strike a proper balance of interests. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR, the principle of proportionality and the obligation to state reasons, since, for the purposes of exercising its discretion of re-adoption, the Commission failed to strike a proper balance of interests.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 41 of the Charter, the principle of the right of defence, Articles 14 and 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, and Articles 11, 12 and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, in that the hearing organised in the proceedings was not capable of remedying the defect established by the Court in the judgment in Case C-85/15 P. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 41 of the Charter, the principle of the right of defence, Articles 14 and 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, and Articles 11, 12 and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, in that the hearing organised in the proceedings was not capable of remedying the defect established by the Court in the judgment in Case C-85/15 P.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 65 ECSC and failed to observe the principle of the presumption of innocence, in so far as it did not observe the principles governing the burden of proof in order to establish the applicant’s participation in the agreement in the period 1989-1995. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 65 ECSC and failed to observe the principle of the presumption of innocence, in so far as it did not observe the principles governing the burden of proof in order to establish the applicant’s participation in the agreement in the period 1989-1995.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 65 ECSC in finding that there was a complex, single and continuous agreement which had continued, as regards the applicant, from 1989 to 2000. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 65 ECSC in finding that there was a complex, single and continuous agreement which had continued, as regards the applicant, from 1989 to 2000.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/90

---

Action brought on 25 September 2019 — Universität Bremen v Commission and REA

(Case T-660/19)

(2019/C 399/109)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Universität Bremen (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: Professor C. Schmid, Agent)

Defendants: European Commission and Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 16 July 2019 rejecting Proposal No 870693 (TenOpt), in the context of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, Call: H2020-SC6-GOVERNANCE-2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 16 July 2019 rejecting Proposal No 870693 (TenOpt), in the context of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, Call: H2020-SC6-GOVERNANCE-2019;

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

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the decision at issue infringes its right, derived from the rule of law, to have its request for funding reviewed without any errors of assessment. In particular, the applicant submits that the evaluation was vitiated by the following:

| — | distortion of the facts, that is to say that essential particulars of the request for funding were incorrectly reproduced in the evaluation; |
| --- | --- |

—

distortion of the facts, that is to say that essential particulars of the request for funding were incorrectly reproduced in the evaluation;

| — | failure to comply with generally applicable assessment criteria; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to comply with generally applicable assessment criteria;

| — | inequality of treatment, arbitrariness and irrelevant considerations. |
| --- | --- |

—

inequality of treatment, arbitrariness and irrelevant considerations.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/91 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/91

---

Action brought on 30 September 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$)

(Case T-665/19)

(2019/C 399/110)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska, legal counsel, and K. Gajek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark €$ — Application No 13 839 998

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2019 in Case R 1345/2018-1

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 the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/91 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/91

---

Action brought on 30 September 2019 — Ferriere Nord v Commission

(Case T-667/19)

(2019/C 399/111)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ferriere Nord SpA (Osoppo, Italy) (represented by: W. Viscardini, G. Donà and B. Comparini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul, under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, European Commission Decision C(2019) 4969 final of 4 July 2019, notified on 18 July 2019, by which the applicant was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of EUR 2 237 000 following a procedure under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (AT.37.956 — Reinforcing bars); |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul, under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, European Commission Decision C(2019) 4969 final of 4 July 2019, notified on 18 July 2019, by which the applicant was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of EUR 2 237 000 following a procedure under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (AT.37.956 — Reinforcing bars);

| 2. | in the alternative, annul Decision C(2019) 4969 final in part, thereby reducing the fine; |
| --- | --- |

2.

in the alternative, annul Decision C(2019) 4969 final in part, thereby reducing the fine;

| 3. | in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 11 pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, relating to ‘Infringement of the rights of defence’






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that there has been an infringement of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), of Articles 14 and 27 of Regulation No 1/2003 and of Articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Regulation No 773/2004, since the hearing of 23 April 2018 did not remedy the infringement of essential procedural requirements criticised by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 21 September 2017 in Case C-88/15 P. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, relating to ‘Infringement of the rights of defence’

—

The applicant submits in that regard that there has been an infringement of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), of Articles 14 and 27 of Regulation No 1/2003 and of Articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Regulation No 773/2004, since the hearing of 23 April 2018 did not remedy the infringement of essential procedural requirements criticised by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 21 September 2017 in Case C-88/15 P.

| 2. | Second plea in law, relating to ‘Failure to observe the principle non bis in idem’






  — | In that regard the applicant alleges infringement of Article 50 of the Charter since, despite the fact that the judgment of the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the General Court — and, accordingly, the previous decision of the Commission — on procedural grounds, the General Court, nevertheless, ruled on the material facts complained of by the Commission. The Commission should not, therefore, have been able to adopt a new decision based on the same facts. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, relating to ‘Failure to observe the principle non bis in idem’

—

In that regard the applicant alleges infringement of Article 50 of the Charter since, despite the fact that the judgment of the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the General Court — and, accordingly, the previous decision of the Commission — on procedural grounds, the General Court, nevertheless, ruled on the material facts complained of by the Commission. The Commission should not, therefore, have been able to adopt a new decision based on the same facts.

| 3. | Third plea in law, relating to ‘Misinterpretation and, accordingly infringement, of the obligation to ensure respect for the right to sound administration and the right for proceedings to be concluded within a reasonable time — Failure to state adequate reasons’






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that, in the light of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and of Article 6 of the ECHR, the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons for considering, and in any case wrongly considered, that it was not required to assess the reasonableness of the duration of the proceedings, asking the Court to make that assessment. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, relating to ‘Misinterpretation and, accordingly infringement, of the obligation to ensure respect for the right to sound administration and the right for proceedings to be concluded within a reasonable time — Failure to state adequate reasons’

—

The applicant submits in that regard that, in the light of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and of Article 6 of the ECHR, the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons for considering, and in any case wrongly considered, that it was not required to assess the reasonableness of the duration of the proceedings, asking the Court to make that assessment.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, relating to ‘Failure to observe the principle that proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the rights of defence’






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR were infringed since the Commission used inspection and sanctioning powers which it no longer had on account of the unreasonable duration of the proceedings, notwithstanding the prejudice — which was confirmed — to the rights of defence resulting from that unreasonable duration. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, relating to ‘Failure to observe the principle that proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the rights of defence’

—

The applicant submits in that regard that Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR were infringed since the Commission used inspection and sanctioning powers which it no longer had on account of the unreasonable duration of the proceedings, notwithstanding the prejudice — which was confirmed — to the rights of defence resulting from that unreasonable duration.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, relating to ‘Defective or erroneous reasoning — Misuse of powers — Failure to observe the principle of proportionality — Infringement of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and of Article 6 ECHR’






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission failed to show that it had a legitimate interest in the re-adoption of the decision, which is therefore ultra vires. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, relating to ‘Defective or erroneous reasoning — Misuse of powers — Failure to observe the principle of proportionality — Infringement of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and of Article 6 ECHR’

—

The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission failed to show that it had a legitimate interest in the re-adoption of the decision, which is therefore ultra vires.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, relating to ‘Plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU in respect of Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 — Lapse of the inspection and sanctioning powers’






  — | The applicant submits that Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 is unlawful since it is incompatible with the principle that proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time and with the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, relating to ‘Plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU in respect of Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 — Lapse of the inspection and sanctioning powers’

—

The applicant submits that Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 is unlawful since it is incompatible with the principle that proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time and with the principle of proportionality.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, relating to ‘Unlawfulness in part of the decision of 4 July 2019 in so far as regards the substance of the conduct at issue — Failure to observe the general principles concerning burden of proof and the principle of in dubio pro reo’






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that some of the conduct ascribed to Ferriere Nord is not anti-competitive and in any event was not proven by the Commission. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, relating to ‘Unlawfulness in part of the decision of 4 July 2019 in so far as regards the substance of the conduct at issue — Failure to observe the general principles concerning burden of proof and the principle of in dubio pro reo’

—

The applicant submits in that regard that some of the conduct ascribed to Ferriere Nord is not anti-competitive and in any event was not proven by the Commission.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, relating to ‘Unlawfulness of the increase for repeated infringement, due to breach of the rights of defence’






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that the increase of the fine to reflect repeated infringement is unlawful, since the Commission did not raise such aggravated circumstances either in the statement of objections or in any subsequent act in the resumed proceedings, thereby preventing the applicant from defending itself on that point. |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, relating to ‘Unlawfulness of the increase for repeated infringement, due to breach of the rights of defence’

—

The applicant submits in that regard that the increase of the fine to reflect repeated infringement is unlawful, since the Commission did not raise such aggravated circumstances either in the statement of objections or in any subsequent act in the resumed proceedings, thereby preventing the applicant from defending itself on that point.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, relating to ‘Unlawfulness of the increase of the fine for repeated infringement, due to undue delay and failure to observe the principle of proportionality’






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that even if the lapse of time between the establishment of the first infringement and the conduct complained of in the contested decision were not considered excessive, it must be borne in mind that, at the date of the re-adoption of the contested decision, 30 years had passed since the first infringement had been established. |
| --- | --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, relating to ‘Unlawfulness of the increase of the fine for repeated infringement, due to undue delay and failure to observe the principle of proportionality’

—

The applicant submits in that regard that even if the lapse of time between the establishment of the first infringement and the conduct complained of in the contested decision were not considered excessive, it must be borne in mind that, at the date of the re-adoption of the contested decision, 30 years had passed since the first infringement had been established.

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, relating to ‘Unlawfulness of the increase of the fine for repeated infringement, due to the excessive amount and failure to state reasons’






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that a 50 % increase in the fine for repeated infringement is not justified, not least given the disproportionate duration of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, relating to ‘Unlawfulness of the increase of the fine for repeated infringement, due to the excessive amount and failure to state reasons’

—

The applicant submits in that regard that a 50 % increase in the fine for repeated infringement is not justified, not least given the disproportionate duration of the proceedings.

| 11. | Eleventh plea in law, relating to ‘Failure to observe the principle of equal treatment in reducing the fine on the ground of mitigating circumstances’






  — | The applicant submits that the reduction in the applicant’s fine on the ground of mitigating circumstances is insufficient, since it is proportionately lower than the reduction awarded on the same ground to another undertaking. |
| --- | --- | --- |

11.

Eleventh plea in law, relating to ‘Failure to observe the principle of equal treatment in reducing the fine on the ground of mitigating circumstances’

—

The applicant submits that the reduction in the applicant’s fine on the ground of mitigating circumstances is insufficient, since it is proportionately lower than the reduction awarded on the same ground to another undertaking.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/93 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/93

---

Action brought on 1 October 2019 — Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings v EUIPO (sound mark)

(Case T-668/19)

(2019/C 399/112)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings GmbH & Co. KG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: S. Abrar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for an EU sound mark — Registration No 17 912 475

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2019 in Case R 530/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

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

Pleas in law

| — | Distortion of facts (breach of Article 72(2) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council); |
| --- | --- |

—

Distortion of facts (breach of Article 72(2) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council);

| — | Infringement of the duty to state reasons (Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the duty to state reasons (Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council);

| — | Failure to have regard to the relevant case-law; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to have regard to the relevant case-law;

| — | Breach of Article 72(2) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of Article 72(2) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Breach of Article 72(2) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of Article 72(2) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Non-observance of the right to be heard (Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Non-observance of the right to be heard (Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/94

---

Action brought on 2 October 2019 – Novomatic v EUIPO – Brouwerij Haacht (PRIMUS)

(Case T-669/19)

(2019/C 399/113)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brouwerij Haacht NV (Boortmeerbeek, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PRIMUS – Application for registration No 14 712 723

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2019 in Case R 2528/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO to bear its own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the Plaintiff in the proceeding in front of the General Court and in the appellate proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO to bear its own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the Plaintiff in the proceeding in front of the General Court and in the appellate proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of essential procedural requirements, namely the requirement of evidence in terms of legal certainty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of essential procedural requirements, namely the requirement of evidence in terms of legal certainty;

| — | Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(2)(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(2)(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of the Commission.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/95 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/95

---

Action brought on 1 October 2019 — FG v Parliament

(Case T-670/19)

(2019/C 399/114)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FG (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

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

—

Declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

in consequence,

| — | annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s application and the decision to appoint [confidential] (1) to the post of [confidential]; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s application and the decision to appoint [confidential] (1) to the post of [confidential];

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 21 June 2019 rejecting the claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 21 June 2019 rejecting the claim;

| — | make good the material harm suffered, as set out in the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

make good the material harm suffered, as set out in the application;

| — | award the sum of EUR 10 000 determined ex aequo et bono and provisionally as compensation for the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the sum of EUR 10 000 determined ex aequo et bono and provisionally as compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

| — | as measures of organisation of the procedure, order the defendant to produce:






  — | the full interview report and the recommendation drawn up by the Advisory Committee; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

as measures of organisation of the procedure, order the defendant to produce:

—

the full interview report and the recommendation drawn up by the Advisory Committee;

| — | the list of topics discussed by the candidates at the interviews; |
| --- | --- |

—

the list of topics discussed by the candidates at the interviews;

| — | the list of merit assessment criteria used by the Advisory Committee and, as necessary, the Appointing Authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

the list of merit assessment criteria used by the Advisory Committee and, as necessary, the Appointing Authority;

| — | the minutes of the deliberations of the Bureau with a view to its recruitment decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

the minutes of the deliberations of the Bureau with a view to its recruitment decision;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 16 May 2000 and Article 6 of the recruitment notice are unlawful, in that they disregard the principles of sound administration, legal certainty and non-discrimination and breach Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. In any event, the recruitment procedure following in this case is unlawful on the same grounds.






  — | First, the Appointing Authority was not provided with a full opinion of the committee as regards the merits of the candidates when it was called upon to take its appointment decision and, accordingly, to make its choice. That means, next, that those merits were not evaluated, by either the committee or the Appointing Authority, objectively and transparently, on the basis of pre-established criteria a fortiori communicated to it. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 16 May 2000 and Article 6 of the recruitment notice are unlawful, in that they disregard the principles of sound administration, legal certainty and non-discrimination and breach Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. In any event, the recruitment procedure following in this case is unlawful on the same grounds.

—

First, the Appointing Authority was not provided with a full opinion of the committee as regards the merits of the candidates when it was called upon to take its appointment decision and, accordingly, to make its choice. That means, next, that those merits were not evaluated, by either the committee or the Appointing Authority, objectively and transparently, on the basis of pre-established criteria a fortiori communicated to it.

| — | Second, the recommendation accompanying the interview report is not otherwise specified. The committee merely draws up an interview report but the decision of 16 May 2000 does not provide for the committee to carry out a comparison of merits at the time of the interviews. Nor does the decision of 16 May 2000 stipulate that the Bureau, as the Appointing Authority, must lay down criteria for that purpose, particularly as, it appears, it does not have access to the criteria established by the committee, should any exist, which they do not. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second, the recommendation accompanying the interview report is not otherwise specified. The committee merely draws up an interview report but the decision of 16 May 2000 does not provide for the committee to carry out a comparison of merits at the time of the interviews. Nor does the decision of 16 May 2000 stipulate that the Bureau, as the Appointing Authority, must lay down criteria for that purpose, particularly as, it appears, it does not have access to the criteria established by the committee, should any exist, which they do not.

| — | Third, the decision of 16 May 2000 does not stipulate that all candidates’ files are to be available to the Appointing Authority. Although the defendant asserts that the members of the Bureau had available to them the personal files of the candidates, it does not claim that those members actually consulted those files and, in particular, that of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third, the decision of 16 May 2000 does not stipulate that all candidates’ files are to be available to the Appointing Authority. Although the defendant asserts that the members of the Bureau had available to them the personal files of the candidates, it does not claim that those members actually consulted those files and, in particular, that of the applicant.

| — | Fourth, the decision of 16 May 2000 does not provide for communication to the candidates of the criteria laid down by the committee and the Appointing Authority for the purposes of their work of examination and comparison of the merits. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth, the decision of 16 May 2000 does not provide for communication to the candidates of the criteria laid down by the committee and the Appointing Authority for the purposes of their work of examination and comparison of the merits.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and disregard of the interests of the service. The applicant submits in that regard that, by appointing [confidential] to the post of [confidential], the Appointing Authority made a manifest error of assessment relating both to compliance with the conditions of the vacancy notice and the recruitment notice and to a comparison of the respective merits of [confidential] and of the applicant. In the same way, the Appointing Authority manifestly disregarded the interests of the service. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and disregard of the interests of the service. The applicant submits in that regard that, by appointing [confidential] to the post of [confidential], the Appointing Authority made a manifest error of assessment relating both to compliance with the conditions of the vacancy notice and the recruitment notice and to a comparison of the respective merits of [confidential] and of the applicant. In the same way, the Appointing Authority manifestly disregarded the interests of the service.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of objectivity and impartiality and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and misuse of powers, which vitiate the contested decisions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of objectivity and impartiality and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and misuse of powers, which vitiate the contested decisions.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care.

---

(1)  Confidential data redacted.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/97

---

Action brought on 2 October 2019 — Companhia de Seguros Índico v Commission

(Case T-672/19)

(2019/C 399/115)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Companhia de Seguros Índico SA (Maputo, Mozambique) (represented by: R. Oliveira and J. Schmid Moura, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision adopted by the European Commission on 18 July 2019; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision adopted by the European Commission on 18 July 2019; and

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and the pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and the pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good faith and abuse of rights: | The activation by the Gabinete do Ordenador Nacional para a Cooperação entre a República de Moçambique e a UE (Office of the National Authorising Officer for Cooperation between the Republic of Mozambique and the EU) (‘GON’) of the guarantees issued by the applicant, which forms the basis of the present action and which resulted in the adoption of the Commission’s decision which is now being challenged, constitutes a manifest infringement of the principle of good faith and a clear abuse of rights. The fact that the applicant did not pay the guarantees, which were unlawfully activated by GON, led the European Commission to adopt the contested decision by which the applicant is excluded for a period of three years from participating in public procurement procedures governed by Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877 and by Regulation (EU/Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council or from being selected to implement Union funds due to alleged grave professional misconduct and alleged significant deficiencies in complying with the main obligations in the performance of a contract financed by the Union’s budget. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good faith and abuse of rights:

The activation by the Gabinete do Ordenador Nacional para a Cooperação entre a República de Moçambique e a UE (Office of the National Authorising Officer for Cooperation between the Republic of Mozambique and the EU) (‘GON’) of the guarantees issued by the applicant, which forms the basis of the present action and which resulted in the adoption of the Commission’s decision which is now being challenged, constitutes a manifest infringement of the principle of good faith and a clear abuse of rights. The fact that the applicant did not pay the guarantees, which were unlawfully activated by GON, led the European Commission to adopt the contested decision by which the applicant is excluded for a period of three years from participating in public procurement procedures governed by Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877 and by Regulation (EU/Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council or from being selected to implement Union funds due to alleged grave professional misconduct and alleged significant deficiencies in complying with the main obligations in the performance of a contract financed by the Union’s budget.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council: | The contested decision must be annulled on the ground that the European Commission committed manifest errors in its ‘preliminary classification in law’ of the applicant’s conduct, in so far as:






  — | the applicant’s conduct cannot be classified as ‘grave professional misconduct’ under Article 106(1)(c) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012; and |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council:

The contested decision must be annulled on the ground that the European Commission committed manifest errors in its ‘preliminary classification in law’ of the applicant’s conduct, in so far as:

—

the applicant’s conduct cannot be classified as ‘grave professional misconduct’ under Article 106(1)(c) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012; and

| — | the applicant’s conduct cannot be classified as ‘significant deficiencies in complying with the main obligations in the performance of a contract financed by the budget’ under Article 106(1)(e) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012. |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant’s conduct cannot be classified as ‘significant deficiencies in complying with the main obligations in the performance of a contract financed by the budget’ under Article 106(1)(e) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(3) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council: | The contested decision must be annulled on the ground that the European Commission did not comply with the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the exclusion of the applicant is disproportionate. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(3) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council:

The contested decision must be annulled on the ground that the European Commission did not comply with the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the exclusion of the applicant is disproportionate.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/98 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/98

---

Action brought on 2 October 2019 – Polfarmex v EUIPO – Kaminski (SYRENA)

(Case T-677/19)

(2019/C 399/116)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polfarmex S.A. (Kutno, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arkadiusz Kaminski (Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SYRENA – European Union trade mark No 9 262 767

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2019 in Joined Cases R 1861/2018-2 and R 1840/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in the part declaring the trade mark at issue to remain in force for “cars” in class 12; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in the part declaring the trade mark at issue to remain in force for “cars” in class 12;

and

| — | alter the contested decision by declaring the trade mark at issue revoked in its entirety, including the goods“cars” in class 12 due to lack of genuine use; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision by declaring the trade mark at issue revoked in its entirety, including the goods“cars” in class 12 due to lack of genuine use;

alternatively,

| — | remit the case to the EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case to the EUIPO;

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

—

order the EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with paragraph 42 of the preamble of that Regulation and Article 55(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with paragraph 42 of the preamble of that Regulation and Article 55(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Articles 18(1), 58(1)(a) and 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 94(1), 95(1) and paragraph 42 of the preamble of that Regulation and Article 55(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 18(1), 58(1)(a) and 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 94(1), 95(1) and paragraph 42 of the preamble of that Regulation and Article 55(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Articles 58(2) and 64(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 58(2) and 64(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Articles 94(1), 64(1) and paragraph 42 of the preamble of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 94(1), 64(1) and paragraph 42 of the preamble of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/99

---

Action brought on 4 October 2019 – Health Product Group v EUIPO – Bioline Pharmaceutical (Enterosgel)

(Case T-678/19)

(2019/C 399/117)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Health Product Group sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bioline Pharmaceutical AG (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Enterosgel – International registration designating the European Union No 896 788

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2019 in Case R 482/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and cancel the trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and cancel the trade mark;

| — | award the costs in applicant’s favour. |
| --- | --- |

—

award the costs in applicant’s favour.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/100

---

Action brought on 4 October 2019 — Argyraki v Commission

(Case T-679/19)

(2019/C 399/118)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassilia Argyraki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of 30 November 2018 taken by the PMO concerning the way in which pension rights are to be calculated, and, in general, the application of the provisions of the Staff Regulations on pension rights in respect of the applicant when she retires; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 30 November 2018 taken by the PMO concerning the way in which pension rights are to be calculated, and, in general, the application of the provisions of the Staff Regulations on pension rights in respect of the applicant when she retires;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action challenging the abovementioned decision of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO), the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the guidance set out in Torné (judgment of 14 December 2018, Torné v Commission, T-128/17, EU:T:2018:969); |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the guidance set out in Torné (judgment of 14 December 2018, Torné v Commission, T-128/17, EU:T:2018:969);

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging unequal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging unequal treatment.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/100

---

Action brought on 7 October 2019 – Euroapotheca v EUIPO – General Nutrition Investment (GNC LIVE WELL)

(Case T-686/19)

(2019/C 399/119)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Euroapotheca UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė, and E. Saukalas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: General Nutrition Investment Co. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark GNC LIVE WELL – European Union trade mark No 940 981

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2019 in Case R 2189/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/101 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/101

---

Action brought on 8 October 2019 – inMusic Brands v EUIPO – Equipson (Marq)

(Case T-687/19)

(2019/C 399/120)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: inMusic Brands, Inc. (Cumberland, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: D. Rose, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Equipson, SA (Silla, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Marq – European Union trade mark No14 585699

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2019 in Case R 1759/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety and maintain the registration in respect of the relevant goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety and maintain the registration in respect of the relevant goods;

| — | order EUIPO and any party involved in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before the General Court, the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and any party involved in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before the General Court, the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(a), in combination with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a), in combination with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/102

---

Action brought on 9 October 2019 — FI v Commission

(Case T-694/19)

(2019/C 399/121)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FI (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 8 March 2019, the decision of 1 April 2019, and the decision of 12 August 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 8 March 2019, the decision of 1 April 2019, and the decision of 12 August 2019;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action against the Commission’s decisions of 8 March, 1 April and 12 August 2019 refusing to grant him a survivor’s pension, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that Articles 18 to 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) are unlawful because they are in breach of the principle of equal treatment and discriminate on the grounds of age, the nature of the legal relationship of a couple’s life together, and disability. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Articles 18 to 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) are unlawful because they are in breach of the principle of equal treatment and discriminate on the grounds of age, the nature of the legal relationship of a couple’s life together, and disability.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in applying Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in that the Commission should have interpreted those provisions as referring to living together as a married couple, whether the couple is married, in a civil partnership, or cohabiting. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in applying Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in that the Commission should have interpreted those provisions as referring to living together as a married couple, whether the couple is married, in a civil partnership, or cohabiting.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error in interpreting the concept of a spouse for the purpose of the system applicable to the survivor’s pension, on the ground that the evolution of Western society calls for a broad interpretation of that concept. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error in interpreting the concept of a spouse for the purpose of the system applicable to the survivor’s pension, on the ground that the evolution of Western society calls for a broad interpretation of that concept.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment resulting from a failure to take account of the applicant’s individual situation. The applicant argues in that regard, first, that he lived with his wife for more than 19 years and, second, that their marriage lasted 4 years, 7 months and 8 days. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment resulting from a failure to take account of the applicant’s individual situation. The applicant argues in that regard, first, that he lived with his wife for more than 19 years and, second, that their marriage lasted 4 years, 7 months and 8 days.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/103 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/103

---

Order of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Fastweb v Commission

(Case T-19/17) (1)

(2019/C 399/122)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/103 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/103

---

Order of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — RATP v Commission

(Case T-250/18) (1)

(2019/C 399/123)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/104

---

Order of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-306/18) (1)

(2019/C 399/124)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.

---

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/104

---

Order of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Fastweb v Commission

(Case T-19/19) (1)

(2019/C 399/125)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---