# Official Journal C 319/10 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 319 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6110 September 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 319

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6110 September 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2018/C 319/01 | 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

2018/C 319/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2018/C 319/02 | Case C-356/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 11 and 12 and Article 76(6) — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 5 — Posting of workers — Affiliation to a social security scheme — Combating fraud — A1 Certificate — Refusal of recognition by the Member State where the professional activity is carried out in the event of fraud or abuse) | 2 |
| 2018/C 319/03 | Case C-540/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Spika UAB, Senoji Baltija AB, Stekutis UAB, Prekybos namai Aistra UAB v Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common fisheries policy — Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 — Article 16(6) and Article 17 — Allocation of fishing opportunities — National legislation laying down a method based on objective and transparent criteria — Inequalities in the conditions of competition between operators in the sector — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 16 and 20 — Freedom to conduct a business — Equal treatment — Proportionality) | 3 |
| 2018/C 319/04 | Case C-629/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — proceedings brought by CX (Reference for a preliminary ruling — International road transport — Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Article 9 — Additional Protocol — Articles 41 and 42 — Freedom to provide services — Standstill clause — Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council — Articles 5 and 7 — Free movement of goods — National legislation restricting the right of road haulage undertakings with their seat in Turkey to operate their vehicles in the territory of the Member State concerned — Obligation to obtain an authorisation issued within the limits of a quota determined on the basis of a bilateral agreement concluded between that Member State and Turkey or a permit granted for a single transport of substantial public interest) | 4 |
| 2018/C 319/05 | Case C-14/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — VAR Srl, Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA (ATM) v Iveco Orecchia SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/17/EC — Article 34 — Supply of spare parts for buses and trolley-buses — Technical specifications — Equivalent products — Whether proof of equivalence may be provided after the contract has been awarded) | 4 |
| 2018/C 319/06 | Case C-15/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp. v Rajavartiolaitos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Montego Bay Convention — Article 220(6) — Powers of the coastal State — Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret provisions of international law — Directive 2005/35/EC — Ship-source pollution — Article 7(2) — Marpol Convention 73/78 — Oil spill in the exclusive economic zone from a foreign vessel in transit — Circumstances in which a coastal State may instigate proceedings against a foreign vessel — Freedom of navigation — Protection of the marine environment — Major damage or threat of major damage to the coastline, related interests or any resources in the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone — Clear objective evidence) | 5 |
| 2018/C 319/07 | Case C-25/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Tietosuojavaltuutettu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Scope of the directive — Article 3 — Data collected and processed by the members of a religious community in the course of their door-to-door preaching — Article 2(c) — Definition of a personal data filing system — Article 2(d) — Definition of a controller of the processing of personal data — Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) | 7 |
| 2018/C 319/08 | Case C-60/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Ángel Somoza Hermo, Ilunión Seguridad SA v Esabe Vigilancia SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 1(1) — Transfer of an undertaking — Article 3(1) — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Taking over of employment contracts in accordance with the terms of a collective agreement — Collective agreement excluding the obligation, for the transferor and transferee of the undertaking, to assume joint and several liability in respect of the obligations, including those relating to wages, which arose from employment contracts before that undertaking was transferred) | 8 |
| 2018/C 319/09 | Case C-88/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Zurich Insurance PLC, Metso Minerals Oy v Abnormal Load Services (International) Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Second indent of Article 5(1)(b) — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance of the obligation — Place of provision of services — Contract for the carriage of goods between two Member States — Route consisting of several stages and involving a number of means of transport) | 8 |
| 2018/C 319/10 | Case C-89/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rozanne Banger (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Article 21 TFEU — Right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the European Union — Directive 2004/38/EC — Point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) — Partner with whom the Union citizen has a duly-attested durable relationship — Return to the Member State of which the Union citizen is a national — Application for residence authorisation — Extensive examination of the applicant’s personal circumstances — Articles 15 and 31 — Effective judicial protection — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47) | 9 |
| 2018/C 319/11 | Case C-154/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA E LATS v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 311(1)(1) — Special arrangements for second-hand goods — Definition of second-hand goods — Goods containing precious metals or precious stones resold by a trader — Processing of those goods after sale — Recovery of the precious metals or precious stones — Concept of precious metals or precious stones) | 10 |
| 2018/C 319/12 | Case C-192/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — COBRA SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/5/EC — Mutual recognition of the conformity of radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment — Existence of harmonised standards — Need for the manufacturer to consult a notified body — Affixing of the identification number of a notified body) | 11 |
| 2018/C 319/13 | Joined Cases C-397/17 and C-398/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Profit Europe NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 7307 11 10, 7307 19 10 and 7307 19 90 — Cast tube or pipe fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron) | 11 |
| 2018/C 319/14 | Case C-726/17 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2017 by Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2017 in Case T-441/16: Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO | 12 |
| 2018/C 319/15 | Case C-320/18 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2018 by Crocs, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2018 in Case T-651/16: Crocs v EUIPO | 12 |
| 2018/C 319/16 | Case C-420/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 26 June 2018 — IO, other party: Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst | 13 |
| 2018/C 319/17 | Case C-438/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 4 July 2018 — Galeria Parque Nascente-Exploração de Espaços Comerciais S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira | 14 |
| 2018/C 319/18 | Case C-451/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 10 July 2018 — Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft. v DAF TRUCKS N.V. | 15 |
| | General Court |
| 2018/C 319/19 | Case T-372/18: Action brought on 20 June 2018 — Colombani v EEAS | 16 |
| 2018/C 319/20 | Case T-376/18: Action brought on 14 June 2018 – Front Polisario v Council | 16 |
| 2018/C 319/21 | Case T-407/18: Action brought on 2 July 2018 — WP v EUIPO | 18 |
| 2018/C 319/22 | Case T-408/18: Action brought on 3 July 2018 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) | 18 |
| 2018/C 319/23 | Case T-419/18: Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission | 19 |
| 2018/C 319/24 | Case T-428/18: Action brought on 12 July 2018 — McDreams Hotel v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis!) | 20 |
| 2018/C 319/25 | Case T-430/18: Action brought on 10 July 2018 — American Airlines/Commission | 21 |
| 2018/C 319/26 | Case T-431/18: Action brought on 12 July 2018 — WN v Parliament | 22 |
| 2018/C 319/27 | Case T-432/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Palo v Commission | 23 |
| 2018/C 319/28 | Case T-438/18: Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Pareto Trading v EUIPO — Bikor and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics (BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH) | 23 |
| 2018/C 319/29 | Case T-448/18: Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Ryanair and Others v Commission | 24 |
| 2018/C 319/30 | Case T-458/18: Action brought on 27 July 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (real nature) | 25 |
| 2018/C 319/31 | Case T-438/17: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR) | 26 |
| 2018/C 319/32 | Case T-469/17: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR) | 26 |
| 2018/C 319/33 | Case T-10/18: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Eesti Apteekide Ühendus v Commission | 26 |
| 2018/C 319/34 | Case T-103/18: Order of the General Court of 6 July 2018 — S & V Technologies v EUIPO — Smoothline (Smoothline) | 27 |
| 2018/C 319/35 | Case T-134/18: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH) | 27 |
| 2018/C 319/36 | Case T-238/18: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission | 27 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2018/C 319/02

Case C-356/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 11 and 12 and Article 76(6) — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 5 — Posting of workers — Affiliation to a social security scheme — Combating fraud — A1 Certificate — Refusal of recognition by the Member State where the professional activity is carried out in the event of fraud or abuse)

2

2018/C 319/03

Case C-540/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Spika UAB, Senoji Baltija AB, Stekutis UAB, Prekybos namai Aistra UAB v Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common fisheries policy — Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 — Article 16(6) and Article 17 — Allocation of fishing opportunities — National legislation laying down a method based on objective and transparent criteria — Inequalities in the conditions of competition between operators in the sector — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 16 and 20 — Freedom to conduct a business — Equal treatment — Proportionality)

3

2018/C 319/04

Case C-629/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — proceedings brought by CX (Reference for a preliminary ruling — International road transport — Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Article 9 — Additional Protocol — Articles 41 and 42 — Freedom to provide services — Standstill clause — Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council — Articles 5 and 7 — Free movement of goods — National legislation restricting the right of road haulage undertakings with their seat in Turkey to operate their vehicles in the territory of the Member State concerned — Obligation to obtain an authorisation issued within the limits of a quota determined on the basis of a bilateral agreement concluded between that Member State and Turkey or a permit granted for a single transport of substantial public interest)

4

2018/C 319/05

Case C-14/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — VAR Srl, Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA (ATM) v Iveco Orecchia SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/17/EC — Article 34 — Supply of spare parts for buses and trolley-buses — Technical specifications — Equivalent products — Whether proof of equivalence may be provided after the contract has been awarded)

4

2018/C 319/06

Case C-15/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp. v Rajavartiolaitos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Montego Bay Convention — Article 220(6) — Powers of the coastal State — Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret provisions of international law — Directive 2005/35/EC — Ship-source pollution — Article 7(2) — Marpol Convention 73/78 — Oil spill in the exclusive economic zone from a foreign vessel in transit — Circumstances in which a coastal State may instigate proceedings against a foreign vessel — Freedom of navigation — Protection of the marine environment — Major damage or threat of major damage to the coastline, related interests or any resources in the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone — Clear objective evidence)

5

2018/C 319/07

Case C-25/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Tietosuojavaltuutettu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Scope of the directive — Article 3 — Data collected and processed by the members of a religious community in the course of their door-to-door preaching — Article 2(c) — Definition of a personal data filing system — Article 2(d) — Definition of a controller of the processing of personal data — Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

7

2018/C 319/08

Case C-60/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Ángel Somoza Hermo, Ilunión Seguridad SA v Esabe Vigilancia SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 1(1) — Transfer of an undertaking — Article 3(1) — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Taking over of employment contracts in accordance with the terms of a collective agreement — Collective agreement excluding the obligation, for the transferor and transferee of the undertaking, to assume joint and several liability in respect of the obligations, including those relating to wages, which arose from employment contracts before that undertaking was transferred)

8

2018/C 319/09

Case C-88/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Zurich Insurance PLC, Metso Minerals Oy v Abnormal Load Services (International) Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Second indent of Article 5(1)(b) — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance of the obligation — Place of provision of services — Contract for the carriage of goods between two Member States — Route consisting of several stages and involving a number of means of transport)

8

2018/C 319/10

Case C-89/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rozanne Banger (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Article 21 TFEU — Right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the European Union — Directive 2004/38/EC — Point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) — Partner with whom the Union citizen has a duly-attested durable relationship — Return to the Member State of which the Union citizen is a national — Application for residence authorisation — Extensive examination of the applicant’s personal circumstances — Articles 15 and 31 — Effective judicial protection — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47)

9

2018/C 319/11

Case C-154/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA E LATS v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 311(1)(1) — Special arrangements for second-hand goods — Definition of second-hand goods — Goods containing precious metals or precious stones resold by a trader — Processing of those goods after sale — Recovery of the precious metals or precious stones — Concept of precious metals or precious stones)

10

2018/C 319/12

Case C-192/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — COBRA SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/5/EC — Mutual recognition of the conformity of radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment — Existence of harmonised standards — Need for the manufacturer to consult a notified body — Affixing of the identification number of a notified body)

11

2018/C 319/13

Joined Cases C-397/17 and C-398/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Profit Europe NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 7307 11 10, 7307 19 10 and 7307 19 90 — Cast tube or pipe fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron)

11

2018/C 319/14

Case C-726/17 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2017 by Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2017 in Case T-441/16: Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO

12

2018/C 319/15

Case C-320/18 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2018 by Crocs, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2018 in Case T-651/16: Crocs v EUIPO

12

2018/C 319/16

Case C-420/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 26 June 2018 — IO, other party: Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst

13

2018/C 319/17

Case C-438/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 4 July 2018 — Galeria Parque Nascente-Exploração de Espaços Comerciais S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

14

2018/C 319/18

Case C-451/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 10 July 2018 — Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft. v DAF TRUCKS N.V.

15

General Court

2018/C 319/19

Case T-372/18: Action brought on 20 June 2018 — Colombani v EEAS

16

2018/C 319/20

Case T-376/18: Action brought on 14 June 2018 – Front Polisario v Council

16

2018/C 319/21

Case T-407/18: Action brought on 2 July 2018 — WP v EUIPO

18

2018/C 319/22

Case T-408/18: Action brought on 3 July 2018 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

18

2018/C 319/23

Case T-419/18: Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission

19

2018/C 319/24

Case T-428/18: Action brought on 12 July 2018 — McDreams Hotel v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis!)

20

2018/C 319/25

Case T-430/18: Action brought on 10 July 2018 — American Airlines/Commission

21

2018/C 319/26

Case T-431/18: Action brought on 12 July 2018 — WN v Parliament

22

2018/C 319/27

Case T-432/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Palo v Commission

23

2018/C 319/28

Case T-438/18: Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Pareto Trading v EUIPO — Bikor and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics (BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH)

23

2018/C 319/29

Case T-448/18: Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Ryanair and Others v Commission

24

2018/C 319/30

Case T-458/18: Action brought on 27 July 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (real nature)

25

2018/C 319/31

Case T-438/17: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

26

2018/C 319/32

Case T-469/17: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

26

2018/C 319/33

Case T-10/18: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Eesti Apteekide Ühendus v Commission

26

2018/C 319/34

Case T-103/18: Order of the General Court of 6 July 2018 — S & V Technologies v EUIPO — Smoothline (Smoothline)

27

2018/C 319/35

Case T-134/18: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH)

27

2018/C 319/36

Case T-238/18: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission

27

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/1

---

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

(2018/C 319/01)

Last publication

OJ C 311, 3.9.2018

Past publications

OJ C 301, 27.8.2018

OJ C 294, 20.8.2018

OJ C 285, 13.8.2018

OJ C 276, 6.8.2018

OJ C 268, 30.7.2018

OJ C 259, 23.7.2018

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-356/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 11 and 12 and Article 76(6) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 5 - Posting of workers - Affiliation to a social security scheme - Combating fraud - A1 Certificate - Refusal of recognition by the Member State where the professional activity is carried out in the event of fraud or abuse))

(2018/C 319/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and by P. Paepe, avocat)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, M. Browne, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by C. Toland, Barrister-at-Law)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by adopting Articles 23 and 24 of the Programme Law of 27 December 2012, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1), Article 12(1) and Article 76(6) 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, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, and under Article 5 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 No 883/2004; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by adopting Articles 23 and 24 of the Programme Law of 27 December 2012, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1), Article 12(1) and Article 76(6) 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, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, and under Article 5 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 No 883/2004;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Spika’ UAB, ‘Senoji Baltija’ AB, ‘Stekutis’ UAB, ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’ UAB v Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

(Case C-540/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 - Article 16(6) and Article 17 - Allocation of fishing opportunities - National legislation laying down a method based on objective and transparent criteria - Inequalities in the conditions of competition between operators in the sector - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 16 and 20 - Freedom to conduct a business - Equal treatment - Proportionality))

(2018/C 319/03)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants:‘Spika’ UAB, ‘Senoji Baltija’ AB, ‘Stekutis’ UAB, ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’ UAB

Respondent: Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

Interveners: Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerija, ‘Sedija’ BUAB, V. Malinausko gamybinė-komercinė firma ‘Stilma’, ‘Starkis’ UAB, ‘Banginis’ UAB, ‘Baltijos šprotai’ UAB, ‘Monistico’ UAB, ‘Ramsun’ UAB, ‘Rikneda’ UAB, ‘Laivitė’ AB, ‘Baltijos jūra’ UAB, ‘Baltlanta’ UAB, ‘Grinvita’ UAB, ‘Strimelė’ UAB, ‘Baltijos žuvys’ BUAB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(6) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC, and Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which that Member State adopts a method of allocation of fishing opportunities which, while being based on a transparent and objective allocation criterion, may create a difference in treatment between operators having fishing vessels flying that Member State’s flag, provided that that method pursues one or more general interests recognised by the European Union and respects the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — proceedings brought by CX

(Case C-629/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - International road transport - Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey - Article 9 - Additional Protocol - Articles 41 and 42 - Freedom to provide services - Standstill clause - Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council - Articles 5 and 7 - Free movement of goods - National legislation restricting the right of road haulage undertakings with their seat in Turkey to operate their vehicles in the territory of the Member State concerned - Obligation to obtain an authorisation issued within the limits of a quota determined on the basis of a bilateral agreement concluded between that Member State and Turkey or a permit granted for a single transport of substantial public interest))

(2018/C 319/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

CX

Other party: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Schärding

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey signed on 12 September 1963 at Ankara by the Republic of Turkey, of the one part, and the Member States of the EEC and the Community, of the other part, concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, the Additional Protocol signed on 23 November 1970 at Brussels, concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, and Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which road haulage undertakings with their seat in Turkey can transport goods by road to that Member State or through its territory only if they have passes issued within the limits of a quota determined for such transport on the basis of the bilateral agreement concluded between that Member State and the Republic of Turkey or if a permit has been granted to them on the ground of substantial public interest, provided that that legislation is not a new restriction on the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — VAR Srl, Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA (ATM) v Iveco Orecchia SpA

(Case C-14/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/17/EC - Article 34 - Supply of spare parts for buses and trolley-buses - Technical specifications - Equivalent products - Whether proof of equivalence may be provided after the contract has been awarded))

(2018/C 319/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: VAR Srl, Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA (ATM)

Respondent: Iveco Orecchia SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(8) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors must be interpreted as meaning that, when the technical specifications in the contract documentation refer to a specific mark, origin or production, the contracting authority must require the tenderer to submit, already in its tender, proof that the products which it proposes are equivalent to those defined in the technical specifications.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp. v Rajavartiolaitos

(Case C-15/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Montego Bay Convention - Article 220(6) - Powers of the coastal State - Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret provisions of international law - Directive 2005/35/EC - Ship-source pollution - Article 7(2) - Marpol Convention 73/78 - Oil spill in the exclusive economic zone from a foreign vessel in transit - Circumstances in which a coastal State may instigate proceedings against a foreign vessel - Freedom of navigation - Protection of the marine environment - Major damage or threat of major damage to the coastline, related interests or any resources in the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone - Clear objective evidence))

(2018/C 319/06)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp.

Defendant: Rajavartiolaitos

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed at Montego Bay on 10 December 1982, and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties, including criminal penalties, for pollution offences, as amended by Directive 2009/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘clear objective evidence’ within the meaning of those provisions covers not only the commission of a violation, but also evidence of the consequences of that violation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed at Montego Bay on 10 December 1982, and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties, including criminal penalties, for pollution offences, as amended by Directive 2009/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘clear objective evidence’ within the meaning of those provisions covers not only the commission of a violation, but also evidence of the consequences of that violation.

| 2. | The expression ‘coastline or related interests’ in Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, must be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, it has the same meaning as the expression ‘coastline or related interests’ in Article I(1) and Article II(4) of the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, concluded at Brussels on 29 November 1969, it being understood that Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea also applied to non-living resources of the territorial sea of the coastal State and to any resources in its exclusive economic zone. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The expression ‘coastline or related interests’ in Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, must be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, it has the same meaning as the expression ‘coastline or related interests’ in Article I(1) and Article II(4) of the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, concluded at Brussels on 29 November 1969, it being understood that Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea also applied to non-living resources of the territorial sea of the coastal State and to any resources in its exclusive economic zone.

| 3. | Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, must be interpreted as meaning that the resources of the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone of a coastal State, within the meaning of those provisions, cover both harvested species and also species associated with them and which are dependent on them, such as animal and plant species which feed on the harvested species. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, must be interpreted as meaning that the resources of the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone of a coastal State, within the meaning of those provisions, cover both harvested species and also species associated with them and which are dependent on them, such as animal and plant species which feed on the harvested species.

| 4. | It is unnecessary, in principle, to take account of the concept of ‘significant pollution’ referred to in Article 220(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea when applying Article 220(6) of that convention and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, and, in particular, when assessing the consequences of a violation, such as those defined in those provisions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

It is unnecessary, in principle, to take account of the concept of ‘significant pollution’ referred to in Article 220(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea when applying Article 220(6) of that convention and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, and, in particular, when assessing the consequences of a violation, such as those defined in those provisions.

| 5. | In order to assess the consequences of a violation, as defined in Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, all the evidence to establish that damage has been caused or that there is a threat of damage to the resources and related interests of the coastal State and to evaluate the extent of the damage caused or threatened to those resources or related interests, taking account inter alia of






  — | the cumulative nature of the damage on several or all of those resources and related interests and the difference in sensitivity of the coastal State with regard to damage to its various resources and related interests; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

In order to assess the consequences of a violation, as defined in Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, all the evidence to establish that damage has been caused or that there is a threat of damage to the resources and related interests of the coastal State and to evaluate the extent of the damage caused or threatened to those resources or related interests, taking account inter alia of

—

the cumulative nature of the damage on several or all of those resources and related interests and the difference in sensitivity of the coastal State with regard to damage to its various resources and related interests;

| — | the foreseeable harmful consequences of discharge on those resources and related interests, not only on the basis of the available scientific data, but also with regard to the nature of the harmful substance(s) contained in the discharge concerned and the volume, direction, speed and the period of time over which the oil spill spreads |
| --- | --- |

—

the foreseeable harmful consequences of discharge on those resources and related interests, not only on the basis of the available scientific data, but also with regard to the nature of the harmful substance(s) contained in the discharge concerned and the volume, direction, speed and the period of time over which the oil spill spreads

| 6. | The specific geographical and ecological characteristics and sensitivity of the Baltic Sea area have an effect on the conditions of applicability of Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of the Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, as regards the definition and classification of the violation and, although not automatically, on the assessment of the extent of the damage that that violation has caused to the resources and related interests of the coastal State. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The specific geographical and ecological characteristics and sensitivity of the Baltic Sea area have an effect on the conditions of applicability of Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of the Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, as regards the definition and classification of the violation and, although not automatically, on the assessment of the extent of the damage that that violation has caused to the resources and related interests of the coastal State.

| 7. | Article 1(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the Member States to impose more stringent measures in accordance with international law that those laid down in Article 7(2) thereof, where international law is applicable, given that the coastal States are authorised to take other measures equivalent in scope to those laid down in Article 220(6). |
| --- | --- |

7.

Article 1(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the Member States to impose more stringent measures in accordance with international law that those laid down in Article 7(2) thereof, where international law is applicable, given that the coastal States are authorised to take other measures equivalent in scope to those laid down in Article 220(6).

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Tietosuojavaltuutettu

(Case C-25/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Scope of the directive - Article 3 - Data collected and processed by the members of a religious community in the course of their door-to-door preaching - Article 2(c) - Definition of a ‘personal data filing system’ - Article 2(d) - Definition of a ‘controller’ of the processing of personal data - Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))

(2018/C 319/07)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Tietosuojavaltuutettu

In the presence of: Jehovan todistajat — uskonnollinen yhdyskunta

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(2) 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, read in the light of Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that the collection of personal data by members of a religious community in the course of door-to-door preaching and the subsequent processing of those data does not constitute either the processing of personal data for the purpose of activities referred to in Article 3(2), first indent, of that directive or the processing of personal data carried out by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity, within the meaning of Article 3(2), second indent, thereof. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(2) 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, read in the light of Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that the collection of personal data by members of a religious community in the course of door-to-door preaching and the subsequent processing of those data does not constitute either the processing of personal data for the purpose of activities referred to in Article 3(2), first indent, of that directive or the processing of personal data carried out by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity, within the meaning of Article 3(2), second indent, thereof.

| 2. | Article 2(c) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘filing system’, referred to by that provision, covers a set of personal data collected in the course of door-to-door preaching, consisting of the names and addresses and other information concerning the persons contacted, if those data are structured according to specific criteria which, in practice, enable them to be easily retrieved for subsequent use. In order for such a set of data to fall within that concept, it is not necessary that they include data sheets, specific lists or other search methods. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(c) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘filing system’, referred to by that provision, covers a set of personal data collected in the course of door-to-door preaching, consisting of the names and addresses and other information concerning the persons contacted, if those data are structured according to specific criteria which, in practice, enable them to be easily retrieved for subsequent use. In order for such a set of data to fall within that concept, it is not necessary that they include data sheets, specific lists or other search methods.

| 3. | Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46, read in the light of Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that it supports the finding that a religious community is a controller, jointly with its members who engage in preaching, for the processing of personal data carried out by the latter in the context of door-to-door preaching organised, coordinated and encouraged by that community, without it being necessary that the community has access to those data, or to establish that that community has given its members written guidelines or instructions in relation to the data processing. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46, read in the light of Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that it supports the finding that a religious community is a controller, jointly with its members who engage in preaching, for the processing of personal data carried out by the latter in the context of door-to-door preaching organised, coordinated and encouraged by that community, without it being necessary that the community has access to those data, or to establish that that community has given its members written guidelines or instructions in relation to the data processing.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Ángel Somoza Hermo, Ilunión Seguridad SA v Esabe Vigilancia SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)

(Case C-60/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 1(1) - Transfer of an undertaking - Article 3(1) - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Taking over of employment contracts in accordance with the terms of a collective agreement - Collective agreement excluding the obligation, for the transferor and transferee of the undertaking, to assume joint and several liability in respect of the obligations, including those relating to wages, which arose from employment contracts before that undertaking was transferred))

(2018/C 319/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ángel Somoza Hermo, Ilunión Seguridad SA

Defendants: Esabe Vigilancia SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, must be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a situation in which a contracting entity has terminated the contract for the provision of services relating to the security of buildings concluded with one undertaking and has, for the purposes of the provision of those services, concluded a new contract with another undertaking, which takes on, pursuant to a collective agreement, the majority, in terms of their number and skills, of the staff whom the first undertaking had assigned to the performance of those services, in so far as the operation is accompanied by the transfer of an economic entity between the two undertakings concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, must be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a situation in which a contracting entity has terminated the contract for the provision of services relating to the security of buildings concluded with one undertaking and has, for the purposes of the provision of those services, concluded a new contract with another undertaking, which takes on, pursuant to a collective agreement, the majority, in terms of their number and skills, of the staff whom the first undertaking had assigned to the performance of those services, in so far as the operation is accompanied by the transfer of an economic entity between the two undertakings concerned.

| 2. | The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the second question referred by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (High Court of Justice of Galicia, Spain), by decision of 30 December 2016. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the second question referred by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (High Court of Justice of Galicia, Spain), by decision of 30 December 2016.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Zurich Insurance PLC, Metso Minerals Oy v Abnormal Load Services (International) Limited

(Case C-88/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Second indent of Article 5(1)(b) - Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance of the obligation - Place of provision of services - Contract for the carriage of goods between two Member States - Route consisting of several stages and involving a number of means of transport))

(2018/C 319/09)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Zurich Insurance PLC, Metso Minerals Oy

Defendant: Abnormal Load Services (International) Limited

Operative part of the judgment

The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a contract for the carriage of goods between Member States in several stages, with stops, and by a number of means of transport, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, both the place of dispatch and the place of delivery of the goods constitute places where transport services are provided, for the purposes of that indent.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rozanne Banger

(Case C-89/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the European Union - Article 21 TFEU - Right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the European Union - Directive 2004/38/EC - Point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) - Partner with whom the Union citizen has a duly-attested durable relationship - Return to the Member State of which the Union citizen is a national - Application for residence authorisation - Extensive examination of the applicant’s personal circumstances - Articles 15 and 31 - Effective judicial protection - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47))

(2018/C 319/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant: Rozanne Banger

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as requiring the Member State of which a Union citizen is a national to facilitate the provision of a residence authorisation to the unregistered partner, a third-country national with whom that Union citizen has a durable relationship that is duly attested, where the Union citizen, having exercised his right of freedom of movement to work in a second Member State, in accordance with the conditions laid down in 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, returns with his partner to the Member State of which he is a national in order to reside there. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as requiring the Member State of which a Union citizen is a national to facilitate the provision of a residence authorisation to the unregistered partner, a third-country national with whom that Union citizen has a durable relationship that is duly attested, where the Union citizen, having exercised his right of freedom of movement to work in a second Member State, in accordance with the conditions laid down in 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, returns with his partner to the Member State of which he is a national in order to reside there.

| 2. | Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a decision to refuse a residence authorisation to the third-country national and unregistered partner of a Union citizen, where that Union citizen, having exercised his right of freedom of movement to work in a second Member State, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Directive 2004/38, returns with his partner to the Member State of which he is a national in order to reside there, must be founded on an extensive examination of the applicant’s personal circumstances and be justified by reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a decision to refuse a residence authorisation to the third-country national and unregistered partner of a Union citizen, where that Union citizen, having exercised his right of freedom of movement to work in a second Member State, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Directive 2004/38, returns with his partner to the Member State of which he is a national in order to reside there, must be founded on an extensive examination of the applicant’s personal circumstances and be justified by reasons.

| 3. | Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that the third-country nationals envisaged in that provision must have available to them a redress procedure in order to challenge a decision to refuse a residence authorisation taken against them, following which the national court must be able to ascertain whether the refusal decision is based on a sufficiently solid factual basis and whether the procedural safeguards were complied with. Those safeguards include the obligation for the competent national authorities to undertake an extensive examination of the applicant’s personal circumstances and to justify any denial of entry or residence. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that the third-country nationals envisaged in that provision must have available to them a redress procedure in order to challenge a decision to refuse a residence authorisation taken against them, following which the national court must be able to ascertain whether the refusal decision is based on a sufficiently solid factual basis and whether the procedural safeguards were complied with. Those safeguards include the obligation for the competent national authorities to undertake an extensive examination of the applicant’s personal circumstances and to justify any denial of entry or residence.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘E LATS’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-154/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 311(1)(1) - Special arrangements for second-hand goods - Definition of ‘second-hand goods’ - Goods containing precious metals or precious stones resold by a trader - Processing of those goods after sale - Recovery of the precious metals or precious stones - Concept of ‘precious metals or precious stones’))

(2018/C 319/11)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SIA ‘E LATS’

Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Article 311(1)(1) 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 concept of ‘second-hand goods’ does not cover used goods containing precious metals or precious stones if those goods are no longer capable of performing their initial function and have retained only the functionalities inherent in those metals and stones, which is for the national court to determine taking into account all the objective circumstances relevant in each individual case.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — COBRA SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

(Case C-192/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/5/EC - Mutual recognition of the conformity of radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment - Existence of harmonised standards - Need for the manufacturer to consult a notified body - Affixing of the identification number of a notified body))

(2018/C 319/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: COBRA SpA

Defendant: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a manufacturer of radio equipment makes use of the procedure laid down in the second paragraph of Annex III to that directive and uses the harmonised standards in order to define the test suites referred to in that paragraph, he is not required to consult a notified body as referred to in Article 11(1) of that directive and, consequently, is not required to ensure that the CE marking is accompanied by the identification number of that notified body. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a manufacturer of radio equipment makes use of the procedure laid down in the second paragraph of Annex III to that directive and uses the harmonised standards in order to define the test suites referred to in that paragraph, he is not required to consult a notified body as referred to in Article 11(1) of that directive and, consequently, is not required to ensure that the CE marking is accompanied by the identification number of that notified body.

| 2. | The second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Directive 1999/5, as amended by Regulation No 596/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a manufacturer of radio equipment who has made use of the procedure identified in Annex III to that directive, using the harmonised standards defining the essential radio test suites to be carried out, is not required to ensure that the CE marking is accompanied by the identification number of the notified body that he has voluntarily consulted — despite not being required to do so — in order to confirm the list of essential radio test suites set out in those harmonised standards. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Directive 1999/5, as amended by Regulation No 596/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a manufacturer of radio equipment who has made use of the procedure identified in Annex III to that directive, using the harmonised standards defining the essential radio test suites to be carried out, is not required to ensure that the CE marking is accompanied by the identification number of the notified body that he has voluntarily consulted — despite not being required to do so — in order to confirm the list of essential radio test suites set out in those harmonised standards.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Profit Europe NV v Belgische Staat

(Joined Cases C-397/17 and C-398/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 7307 11 10, 7307 19 10 and 7307 19 90 - Cast tube or pipe fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron))

(2018/C 319/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Profit Europe NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that the cast tube or pipe fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron must be classified under subheading 7307 19 90 thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/12

---

Appeal brought on 22 December 2017 by Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2017 in Case T-441/16: Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO

(Case C-726/17 P)

(2018/C 319/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd (represented by: T. Grucelski, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG

By order of 11 July 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/12

---

Appeal brought on 14 May 2018 by Crocs, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2018 in Case T-651/16: Crocs v EUIPO

(Case C-320/18 P)

(2018/C 319/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Crocs, Inc. (represented by: J. Guise, Solicitor, D. Knight, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Gifi Diffusion

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision.

| — | In the event that the Court of Justice upholds the first plea in law, the appellant requests that the Court additionally annuls the Board of Appeal Decision and upholds the First Instance Decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the event that the Court of Justice upholds the first plea in law, the appellant requests that the Court additionally annuls the Board of Appeal Decision and upholds the First Instance Decision.

| — | In the event that the Court of Justice upholds the second plea in law, the appellant requests that the contested decision be set aside and the General Court be instructed to restrict its consideration to the factual and legal questions addressed in the Board of Appeal Decision. If the General Court concludes that it cannot uphold the Board of Appeal Decision when the Website Disclosures are considered in isolation, then the appellant requests that it refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal for further consideration as to whether, in light of the evidence provided, the Fort Lauderdale Disclosures and Sales Disclosures fall within the Article 7 (1) exception. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the event that the Court of Justice upholds the second plea in law, the appellant requests that the contested decision be set aside and the General Court be instructed to restrict its consideration to the factual and legal questions addressed in the Board of Appeal Decision. If the General Court concludes that it cannot uphold the Board of Appeal Decision when the Website Disclosures are considered in isolation, then the appellant requests that it refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal for further consideration as to whether, in light of the evidence provided, the Fort Lauderdale Disclosures and Sales Disclosures fall within the Article 7 (1) exception.

| — | In the event that the Court of Justice upholds the third plea in law, the appellant requests that the Contested Decision be set aside as regards the application of Article 7 and the General Court be instructed to re-assess the evidence giving proper force to the wording of Article 7 and applying a balance of probabilities test. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the event that the Court of Justice upholds the third plea in law, the appellant requests that the Contested Decision be set aside as regards the application of Article 7 and the General Court be instructed to re-assess the evidence giving proper force to the wording of Article 7 and applying a balance of probabilities test.

| — | In the event that the Court of Justice upholds the fourth plea in law, the appellant requests that the Contested Decision be annulled and the matter remitted to a different Chamber of the General Court for further consideration. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the event that the Court of Justice upholds the fourth plea in law, the appellant requests that the Contested Decision be annulled and the matter remitted to a different Chamber of the General Court for further consideration.

| — | The appellant further requests that the Court of Justice makes an award of costs in its favour pursuant to Article 137 and 184 the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

The appellant further requests that the Court of Justice makes an award of costs in its favour pursuant to Article 137 and 184 the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1) | First Plea in Law — Infringement of Article 63 CDR

  The General Court erred in is interpretation and application of Article 63 by failing to annul the Board of Appeal Decision as far as it allowed admission of new evidence. |
| --- | --- |

1)

First Plea in Law — Infringement of Article 63 CDR

The General Court erred in is interpretation and application of Article 63 by failing to annul the Board of Appeal Decision as far as it allowed admission of new evidence.

| 2) | Second Plea in Law — Infringement of Article 61 CDR

  The General Court infringed Article 61 by in effect determining factual questions which had not been determined by the Board of Appeal in its decision and were not within the scope of the appeal. As such the General Court went outside of its jurisdiction to annul or alter the Board of Appeal Decision. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Second Plea in Law — Infringement of Article 61 CDR

The General Court infringed Article 61 by in effect determining factual questions which had not been determined by the Board of Appeal in its decision and were not within the scope of the appeal. As such the General Court went outside of its jurisdiction to annul or alter the Board of Appeal Decision.

| 3) | Third Plea in Law — Infringement of Article 7 CDR

  The General Court infringed Article 7 by applying the wrong standard of proof. In doing so, the General Court also suggested that the test requires specific items of evidence, rather than applying the legal test to the evidence as filed in the proceedings. Finally, the General Court incorrectly dismissed the appellant's argument that a quantitative factor may be taken into consideration when applying Article 7. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Third Plea in Law — Infringement of Article 7 CDR

The General Court infringed Article 7 by applying the wrong standard of proof. In doing so, the General Court also suggested that the test requires specific items of evidence, rather than applying the legal test to the evidence as filed in the proceedings. Finally, the General Court incorrectly dismissed the appellant's argument that a quantitative factor may be taken into consideration when applying Article 7.

| 4) | Fourth Plea in Law — Irregular Constitution of the General Court (Seventh Chamber)

  The Seventh Chamber of the General Court was improperly constituted. Judge Kornezov had been appointed to the General Court from the Civil Service Tribunal in 2016. However, it has since been found that Judge Kornezov's appointment to the Civil Service Tribunal was vitiated by a procedural error. Had Judge Kornezov not been sitting on the Civil Service Tribunal in 2016, his appointment to the General Court would not have been possible before 2019. As such, it appears that his appointment to the General Court is also vitiated by a procedural error. The Contested Decision must therefore be set aside and the matter remitted back to a different Chamber of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Fourth Plea in Law — Irregular Constitution of the General Court (Seventh Chamber)

The Seventh Chamber of the General Court was improperly constituted. Judge Kornezov had been appointed to the General Court from the Civil Service Tribunal in 2016. However, it has since been found that Judge Kornezov's appointment to the Civil Service Tribunal was vitiated by a procedural error. Had Judge Kornezov not been sitting on the Civil Service Tribunal in 2016, his appointment to the General Court would not have been possible before 2019. As such, it appears that his appointment to the General Court is also vitiated by a procedural error. The Contested Decision must therefore be set aside and the matter remitted back to a different Chamber of the General Court.

---

(1)  Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002, L 3, p. 1) (‘CDR’).

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 26 June 2018 — IO, other party: Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst

(Case C-420/18)

(2018/C 319/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: IO

Other party: Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst

Question referred

Does a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation, who is in a subordinate position in regard to that Board for his employment and remuneration conditions, but who is otherwise not in a subordinate position in regard to the Supervisory Board or the foundation, carry out his economic activities independently within the meaning of Article 9 and Article 10 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 26 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 4 July 2018 — Galeria Parque Nascente-Exploração de Espaços Comerciais S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-438/18)

(2018/C 319/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Galeria Parque Nascente-Exploração de Espaços Comerciais S.A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred

| 1. | If Article 23(1)(c) of the Corporation Tax Code, in the version in force in 2013, and Article 23(1) and (2)(c) of that code, in the version in force in 2014, are interpreted as meaning that, after the ‘reverse merger’ in question, the interest on the loans taken out with third parties (which but for the merger would be deductible by the company now being acquired), in order to purchase the shares of the subsidiary which is now the acquiring company, and transferred as a result of the merger, ceases to be deductible for tax purposes from the profits of the acquiring company, will those provisions be compatible with Community law, in particular having regard to the fact that that non-deductibility of the interest may constitute an impediment or restriction to the merger operations encompassed by Council Directive 2009/133/EC, (1) infringing the principles and objectives of that directive, as well as Article 4 thereof? |
| --- | --- |

1.

If Article 23(1)(c) of the Corporation Tax Code, in the version in force in 2013, and Article 23(1) and (2)(c) of that code, in the version in force in 2014, are interpreted as meaning that, after the ‘reverse merger’ in question, the interest on the loans taken out with third parties (which but for the merger would be deductible by the company now being acquired), in order to purchase the shares of the subsidiary which is now the acquiring company, and transferred as a result of the merger, ceases to be deductible for tax purposes from the profits of the acquiring company, will those provisions be compatible with Community law, in particular having regard to the fact that that non-deductibility of the interest may constitute an impediment or restriction to the merger operations encompassed by Council Directive 2009/133/EC, (1) infringing the principles and objectives of that directive, as well as Article 4 thereof?

| 2. | If the first question is answered to the effect that that non-deduction of interest for tax purposes is compatible with the directive, will that answer remain unchanged by the fact that such a correction was not made on the basis of the anti-abuse provision of the directive (Article 15) or the national law reproducing it (Article 73(10) of the Corporation Tax Code), but another provision of national law (Article 23 of the Corporation Tax Code)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered to the effect that that non-deduction of interest for tax purposes is compatible with the directive, will that answer remain unchanged by the fact that such a correction was not made on the basis of the anti-abuse provision of the directive (Article 15) or the national law reproducing it (Article 73(10) of the Corporation Tax Code), but another provision of national law (Article 23 of the Corporation Tax Code)?

---

(1)  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 (OJ 2009 L 310, p. 34).

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 10 July 2018 — Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft. v DAF TRUCKS N.V.

(Case C-451/18)

(2018/C 319/18)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft.

Defendant: DAF TRUCKS N.V.

Questions referred

Should the rule on special jurisdiction laid down in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Member State has jurisdiction as the court for the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’, where:

| — | the domicile or principal place of economic activity or of the financial interests of the applicant who claims to have suffered the damage or loss is in the State in question; |
| --- | --- |

—

the domicile or principal place of economic activity or of the financial interests of the applicant who claims to have suffered the damage or loss is in the State in question;

| — | the claim brought by the applicant — which is against a single defendant, namely a truck manufacturer domiciled in another Member State — is based on an infringement [established] by [a decision of] the European Commission under Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty), consisting of collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases in the European Economic Area, and the decision is addressed to other parties in addition to the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

—

the claim brought by the applicant — which is against a single defendant, namely a truck manufacturer domiciled in another Member State — is based on an infringement [established] by [a decision of] the European Commission under Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty), consisting of collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases in the European Economic Area, and the decision is addressed to other parties in addition to the defendant;

| — | the applicant only purchased trucks manufactured by other undertakings involved in the cartel; |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant only purchased trucks manufactured by other undertakings involved in the cartel;

| — | there is nothing to show that any of the meetings that were found to restrict competition were held in the State of the court seised; |
| --- | --- |

—

there is nothing to show that any of the meetings that were found to restrict competition were held in the State of the court seised;

| — | the applicant generally purchased the trucks — in its view, at distorted prices — in the State of the court seised, and to that end it entered into financial leasing agreements involving definite transfer of ownership with undertakings that operated in that State but, according to its own statements, the applicant negotiated directly with the vehicle dealerships, and the lessor added its own profit margin and the leasing costs onto the prices agreed by the applicant, and the right of ownership over the vehicles was transferred to the applicant on completion of the leasing agreement, when it expired? |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant generally purchased the trucks — in its view, at distorted prices — in the State of the court seised, and to that end it entered into financial leasing agreements involving definite transfer of ownership with undertakings that operated in that State but, according to its own statements, the applicant negotiated directly with the vehicle dealerships, and the lessor added its own profit margin and the leasing costs onto the prices agreed by the applicant, and the right of ownership over the vehicles was transferred to the applicant on completion of the leasing agreement, when it expired?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---

General Court

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/16

---

Action brought on 20 June 2018 — Colombani v EEAS

(Case T-372/18)

(2018/C 319/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Marc Colombani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the EEAS Director General for Budget and Administration of 9 November 2017 (ADMIN(2017)21) establishing the list of officials promoted in the 2017 promotion exercise in so far as it does not contain the applicant’s name; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the EEAS Director General for Budget and Administration of 9 November 2017 (ADMIN(2017)21) establishing the list of officials promoted in the 2017 promotion exercise in so far as it does not contain the applicant’s name;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging illegality in respect of the general implementing provisions applied by the EEAS to the promotion procedure |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging illegality in respect of the general implementing provisions applied by the EEAS to the promotion procedure

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging maladministration, failure to comply with the procedure prior to the adoption of the list of officials proposed for promotion and unequal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging maladministration, failure to comply with the procedure prior to the adoption of the list of officials proposed for promotion and unequal treatment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general implementing provisions of the EEAS relating to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general implementing provisions of the EEAS relating to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s merits and unequal treatment in the assessment of the seniority criterion. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s merits and unequal treatment in the assessment of the seniority criterion.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/16

---

Action brought on 14 June 2018 – Front Polisario v Council

(Case T-376/18)

(2018/C 319/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia el-Hamra et Rio de oro (Front Polisario) (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Declare its action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare its action admissible;

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the Council’s decision of 16 April 2018, authorising the Commission to open negotiations, on behalf of the European Union, for the purposes of amending the Fisheries Partnership Agreement and concluding a Protocol with the Kingdom of Morocco (decision not published in the Official Journal of the European Union), the applicant relies on ten pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a lack of authority on the part of the Council to adopt the contested decision, in so far as the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco lack competence to negotiate international agreements including Western Sahara, for and on behalf of the people of that territory as represented by the Front Polisario. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a lack of authority on the part of the Council to adopt the contested decision, in so far as the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco lack competence to negotiate international agreements including Western Sahara, for and on behalf of the people of that territory as represented by the Front Polisario.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to examine all the relevant aspects of the present case, in so far as, when adopting the contested decision, the Council failed to take account of the case-law of the Court on the question of Western Sahara. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to examine all the relevant aspects of the present case, in so far as, when adopting the contested decision, the Council failed to take account of the case-law of the Court on the question of Western Sahara.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to examine the question of respect for fundamental rights and international humanitarian law, in so far as it is apparent from the contested decision that the Council failed to consider the question of respect for fundamental rights and international humanitarian law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to examine the question of respect for fundamental rights and international humanitarian law, in so far as it is apparent from the contested decision that the Council failed to consider the question of respect for fundamental rights and international humanitarian law.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the rights of the defence in so far as the Council failed to engage in any discussion with the Front Polisario, the sole representative of the people of Western Sahara, prior to the adoption of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the rights of the defence in so far as the Council failed to engage in any discussion with the Front Polisario, the sole representative of the people of Western Sahara, prior to the adoption of the contested decision.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach, on the part of the Council, of its obligation to execute the judgments of the Court, in so far as the contested decision disregards the grounds of the Court’s judgments in Cases C-104/16 P and C-266/16. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach, on the part of the Council, of its obligation to execute the judgments of the Court, in so far as the contested decision disregards the grounds of the Court’s judgments in Cases C-104/16 P and C-266/16.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of the essential principles and values guiding the Union’s action on the international stage, since (i) the decision denies the existence of the people of Western Sahara in substituting the words ‘populations concerned’ therefor; and (ii) it authorises the opening of negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco in the context of the latter’s annexationist policy with regard to Western Sahara and the systematic breaches of fundamental rights that maintaining such a policy entails. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of the essential principles and values guiding the Union’s action on the international stage, since (i) the decision denies the existence of the people of Western Sahara in substituting the words ‘populations concerned’ therefor; and (ii) it authorises the opening of negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco in the context of the latter’s annexationist policy with regard to Western Sahara and the systematic breaches of fundamental rights that maintaining such a policy entails.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to self-determination, since (i) the decision denies the existence of the people of Western Sahara with regard to the right to self-determination and upsets the national unity of that people; and (ii) it authorises the opening of negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco in breach of the separate and distinct status of Western Sahara and the permanent sovereignty of the people of that territory over its natural resources. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to self-determination, since (i) the decision denies the existence of the people of Western Sahara with regard to the right to self-determination and upsets the national unity of that people; and (ii) it authorises the opening of negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco in breach of the separate and distinct status of Western Sahara and the permanent sovereignty of the people of that territory over its natural resources.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of the relative effect of treaties, in so far as the contested decision denies the people of Western Sahara, represented by the Front Polisario, standing as a third party in EU-Morocco relations. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of the relative effect of treaties, in so far as the contested decision denies the people of Western Sahara, represented by the Front Polisario, standing as a third party in EU-Morocco relations.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging a breach of international humanitarian law and international criminal law since (i) the negotiations, authorised by the contested decision, are being conducted in the context of the Kingdom of Morocco’s annexationist policy with regard to Western Sahara; and (ii) by using the words ‘populations concerned’, that decision endorses the illegal transfer of Moroccan colonists to occupied Sahraouian territory. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging a breach of international humanitarian law and international criminal law since (i) the negotiations, authorised by the contested decision, are being conducted in the context of the Kingdom of Morocco’s annexationist policy with regard to Western Sahara; and (ii) by using the words ‘populations concerned’, that decision endorses the illegal transfer of Moroccan colonists to occupied Sahraouian territory.

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging breach of the Union’s obligation not to recognise illegal situations since, in authorising negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco with regard to Western Sahara, the contested decision ratifies the serious breaches of international law committed by the Moroccan occupying forces against the people of Western Sahara. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging breach of the Union’s obligation not to recognise illegal situations since, in authorising negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco with regard to Western Sahara, the contested decision ratifies the serious breaches of international law committed by the Moroccan occupying forces against the people of Western Sahara.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/18

---

Action brought on 2 July 2018 — WP v EUIPO

(Case T-407/18)

(2018/C 319/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WP (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 to refuse the second renewal of the applicant’s contract as a Temporary Agent pursuant to Art. 2 f) CEOS (Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the EU); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 to refuse the second renewal of the applicant’s contract as a Temporary Agent pursuant to Art. 2 f) CEOS (Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the EU); and

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has infringed the principle of legality by infringing the relevant provisions of the SR (Staff Regulations of the Officials of the EU) and CEOS, namely Art. 56 CEOS and 110 SR, and that the contested decision lacks any other legal base. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has infringed the principle of legality by infringing the relevant provisions of the SR (Staff Regulations of the Officials of the EU) and CEOS, namely Art. 56 CEOS and 110 SR, and that the contested decision lacks any other legal base.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has infringed the principle of legality, made a manifest error of assessment and breached its duty to have regard for the welfare of staff. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has infringed the principle of legality, made a manifest error of assessment and breached its duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has breached the requirements of Regulation 45/2001 (1), especially of Article 27 sec. 1, sec. 2 (b) of Regulation 45/2001. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has breached the requirements of Regulation 45/2001 (1), especially of Article 27 sec. 1, sec. 2 (b) of Regulation 45/2001.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has breached the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has breached the principle of equal treatment.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001, L 8, p. 1)

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/18

---

Action brought on 3 July 2018 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

(Case T-408/18)

(2018/C 319/22)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: S. Paliou, lawyer)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare that the defendant’s demand, set out in debit note No 3241804913 of 16 April 2018, that the applicant repay part of the subsidy which it received for the ENHSA action is unfounded in respect of the sum of EUR 77 169,78 and declare that that sum corresponds to eligible expenditure; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendant’s demand, set out in debit note No 3241804913 of 16 April 2018, that the applicant repay part of the subsidy which it received for the ENHSA action is unfounded in respect of the sum of EUR 77 169,78 and declare that that sum corresponds to eligible expenditure;

| — | declare that the defendant’s demand, set out in debit note No 3241804682 of 9 April 2018, that the applicant repay part of the subsidy which it received for the ARCHI-MUNDUS action, amounting to EUR 28 976,83, is unfounded and declare that that sum corresponds to eligible expenditure; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendant’s demand, set out in debit note No 3241804682 of 9 April 2018, that the applicant repay part of the subsidy which it received for the ARCHI-MUNDUS action, amounting to EUR 28 976,83, is unfounded and declare that that sum corresponds to eligible expenditure;

| — | call upon the defendant to repay the foregoing sums with statutory interest; and |
| --- | --- |

—

call upon the defendant to repay the foregoing sums with statutory interest; and

| — | order the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis contests the demand which the EACEA has formulated by debit note No 3241804913 of 16 April 2018 in the sum of EUR 84 955,12 relating to the ENHSA action. Also, Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis contests the demand which the EACEA has formulated by debit note No 3241804682 of 9 April 2018 in the sum of EUR 28 976,83 relating to the ARCHI-MUNDUS action.

Those demands were made after the EACEA carried out an on-site audit at the applicant’s premises, when the EACEA disputed the reality of the expenditure that related to flat-rate daily allowances in connection with conferences that were held within the framework of the ENHSA and ARCHI-MUNDUS actions.

In that context, the applicant asks the General Court of the European Union to declare that the flat-rate daily allowance (per diem) for the non-Greek-speaking participants at the conferences under the two actions corresponds to eligible expenditure.

Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis maintains that the expenditure contested by the EACEA is eligible. That is confirmed by the material which the applicant submitted to the EACEA during the on-site audit and by means of subsequent correspondence.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/19

---

Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission

(Case T-419/18)

(2018/C 319/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Montrouge) (represented by J.-P. Tran Thiet, M. Powell, J. Jourdan and J.-J. Lemonnier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision in so far as it rejects the applications for confidential treatment made by the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision in so far as it rejects the applications for confidential treatment made by the applicants;

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

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action against Commission Decision C(2018) 2743 final of 27 April 2018 concerning objections to the disclosure of information submitted by the applicants on the basis of Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 (OJ 2011, L 275, p. 29) on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD)), the applicants put forward two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the publication of information concerning the applicants relating to discussions between traders before the infringement period breaches the presumption of innocence. In that regard, the Commission is not entitled to publish a decision containing allusions to infringing conduct that the applicants cannot challenge. The contested decision thus erred in law in rejecting the requests for confidential treatment of the applicants concerning that information. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the publication of information concerning the applicants relating to discussions between traders before the infringement period breaches the presumption of innocence. In that regard, the Commission is not entitled to publish a decision containing allusions to infringing conduct that the applicants cannot challenge. The contested decision thus erred in law in rejecting the requests for confidential treatment of the applicants concerning that information.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the publication, before a ruling on the merits by the Court in Case T-113/17, Crédit agricole et Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission, of information alluding to infringing conduct by the applicants, which they dispute before the Court, constitutes an infringement of the presumption of innocence. The contested decision therefore erred in law in rejecting the applications for confidential treatment made by the applicants concerning that information. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the publication, before a ruling on the merits by the Court in Case T-113/17, Crédit agricole et Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission, of information alluding to infringing conduct by the applicants, which they dispute before the Court, constitutes an infringement of the presumption of innocence. The contested decision therefore erred in law in rejecting the applications for confidential treatment made by the applicants concerning that information.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/20

---

Action brought on 12 July 2018 — McDreams Hotel v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis!)

(Case T-428/18)

(2018/C 319/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: McDreams Hotel GmbH (Feldkirchen, Germany) (represented by: S. Schenk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd (Wilmington, Delaware, United States).

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 figurative mark mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis! — Application for registration No 1 47 35 435

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2018 in Case R 972/2017-2.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) and Art. 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) and Art. 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/21

---

Action brought on 10 July 2018 — American Airlines/Commission

(Case T-430/18)

(2018/C 319/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: American Airlines, Inc. (Fort Worth, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Poitras, Solicitor, J. Ruiz Calzado and J. Wileur, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Grandfathering Approval Decision (Decision C(2018) 2788 of 30 April 2018); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Grandfathering Approval Decision (Decision C(2018) 2788 of 30 April 2018);

| — | order the Commission and any interveners in support of the Commission to pay the costs; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission and any interveners in support of the Commission to pay the costs; and

| — | making any other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. |
| --- | --- |

—

making any other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that that the European Commission committed both errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in adopting decision C(2018) 2788 of 30 April 2018 in which the Commission determined that Delta was entitled to acquire grandfathering rights over the slots made available by American Airlines under the commitments submitted in Case M.6607 (the ‘Commitments’).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law in applying the wrong legal standard for the acquisition of grandfathering rights under the Commitments.
  The applicant submits that in assessing whether Delta had made ‘appropriate use’ of the slots pursuant to the Commitments, the Commission decided that the only analysis to be undertaken was to verify that Delta was not in a situation of ‘misuse’. The applicants further puts forward that, contrary to the Commission’s position, an examination of the wording, context and objective of the Commitments leads to the conclusion that ‘absence of misuse’ is not relevant, and that the correct interpretation of the concept of ‘appropriate use’ in the Commitments would have required the Commission to verify whether the use of the slots was ‘in accordance with the bid’ that Delta formally submitted to receive the slots. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law in applying the wrong legal standard for the acquisition of grandfathering rights under the Commitments.

The applicant submits that in assessing whether Delta had made ‘appropriate use’ of the slots pursuant to the Commitments, the Commission decided that the only analysis to be undertaken was to verify that Delta was not in a situation of ‘misuse’. The applicants further puts forward that, contrary to the Commission’s position, an examination of the wording, context and objective of the Commitments leads to the conclusion that ‘absence of misuse’ is not relevant, and that the correct interpretation of the concept of ‘appropriate use’ in the Commitments would have required the Commission to verify whether the use of the slots was ‘in accordance with the bid’ that Delta formally submitted to receive the slots.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment in determining that Delta complied with the ‘appropriate use’ requirement.
  The applicant submits that since Delta chose to depart from its bid, the Commission would have been required to determine whether this departure and the ultimate level of usage of the slots could be accepted taking into account relevant economic evidence and analysis to ensure competition and therefore consumer benefits were maximized. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment in determining that Delta complied with the ‘appropriate use’ requirement.

The applicant submits that since Delta chose to depart from its bid, the Commission would have been required to determine whether this departure and the ultimate level of usage of the slots could be accepted taking into account relevant economic evidence and analysis to ensure competition and therefore consumer benefits were maximized.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/22

---

Action brought on 12 July 2018 — WN v Parliament

(Case T-431/18)

(2018/C 319/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WN (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 28 September 2017 terminating the applicant’s contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 28 September 2017 terminating the applicant’s contract;

| — | if need be, annul the defendant’s decision of 4 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 7 November 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

if need be, annul the defendant’s decision of 4 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 7 November 2017;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant, evaluated at EUR 20 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant, evaluated at EUR 20 000;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the present proceedings.

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 procedural irregularities including the infringement of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to be heard and breach of the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging procedural irregularities including the infringement of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to be heard and breach of the duty to state reasons.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions relating to the conciliation procedure and in particular Articles 23 and 25 of the Implementing measures for Title VII of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions relating to the conciliation procedure and in particular Articles 23 and 25 of the Implementing measures for Title VII of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the EU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 1(d) of the Staff Regulations, Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Directive 2006/54/EC. (1) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 1(d) of the Staff Regulations, Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Directive 2006/54/EC. (1)

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by the defendant in relation to the elements contained in the contested decisions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by the defendant in relation to the elements contained in the contested decisions.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the duty of care owed by the defendant to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the duty of care owed by the defendant to the applicant.

---

(1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/23

---

Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Palo v Commission

(Case T-432/18)

(2018/C 319/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Peeter Palo (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 5 October 2017 not to allocate the applicant the severance grant provided for under Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 5 October 2017 not to allocate the applicant the severance grant provided for under Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 10 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 11 December 2017 directed against the abovementioned decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 10 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 11 December 2017 directed against the abovementioned decision;

| — | order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the material damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the material damage suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to bear all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/23

---

Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Pareto Trading v EUIPO — Bikor and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics (BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH)

(Case T-438/18)

(2018/C 319/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pareto Trading Co., Inc. (Carlstadt, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, C. Martínez-Tercero Molina, V. Balaguer Fuentes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bikor Elżbieta Korbut (Gdańsk, Poland) and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics Małgorzata Wedekind (Gdańsk)

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: Application for European Union word mark BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH — European Union trade mark No 9 561 788

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2018 in Case R 1826/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare that the costs in this proceedings shall be borne by the Defendant, including all the costs which the Applicant has incurred before both the Cancellation Division and the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO that have resulted in the present Application. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the costs in this proceedings shall be borne by the Defendant, including all the costs which the Applicant has incurred before both the Cancellation Division and the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO that have resulted in the present Application.

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.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/24

---

Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Ryanair and Others v Commission

(Case T-448/18)

(2018/C 319/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) and FR Financing (Malta) Ltd (Douglas, Isle of Man) (represented by: E. Vahida and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul Articles 5 and 6 of European Commission decision (EU) 2018/628 of 11 November 2016 on State aid SA.24221(2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Austria for the Klagenfurt airport, Ryanair and other airlines using the airport (OJ 2018 L 107, p. 1), and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the said decision insofar as they concern the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 5 and 6 of European Commission decision (EU) 2018/628 of 11 November 2016 on State aid SA.24221(2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Austria for the Klagenfurt airport, Ryanair and other airlines using the airport (OJ 2018 L 107, p. 1), and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the said decision insofar as they concern the applicants;

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

—

order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the provisions on limitation periods of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, (1) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the TFEU, (2) and fails to state reasons, as the limitation period of ten years applied to two agreements from 2002 which were nevertheless addressed in the decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the provisions on limitation periods of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, (1) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the TFEU, (2) and fails to state reasons, as the limitation period of ten years applied to two agreements from 2002 which were nevertheless addressed in the decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of good administration, and the applicants’ rights of defence, as the Commission failed to allow the applicants to access the file of the investigation and to put them in a position where they could effectively make known their views. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of good administration, and the applicants’ rights of defence, as the Commission failed to allow the applicants to access the file of the investigation and to put them in a position where they could effectively make known their views.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 107(1) TFEU because the Commission erroneously imputed the conclusion of the agreements with the applicants to the State. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 107(1) TFEU because the Commission erroneously imputed the conclusion of the agreements with the applicants to the State.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 107(1) TFEU, because the Commission has failed to establish selectivity. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 107(1) TFEU, because the Commission has failed to establish selectivity.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU because the Commission erroneously concluded that the arrangements between the airport and the applicants conferred an advantage on the applicants. The Commission erroneously dismissed the possibility that part of the marketing services may have been purchased for general interest purposes, erroneously refused to accept the comparator analysis proposed by the applicants, committed manifest errors of assessment and failed to state reasons in its profitability analysis, by basing its conclusions on incomplete, unreliable and inappropriate data; it also failed to attribute an appropriate value to the services provided under the marketing services agreements, wrongly dismissed the rationale behind the airport’s decision to purchase marketing services and wrongly disregarded the wider benefits of Ryanair’s operations for the airport. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU because the Commission erroneously concluded that the arrangements between the airport and the applicants conferred an advantage on the applicants. The Commission erroneously dismissed the possibility that part of the marketing services may have been purchased for general interest purposes, erroneously refused to accept the comparator analysis proposed by the applicants, committed manifest errors of assessment and failed to state reasons in its profitability analysis, by basing its conclusions on incomplete, unreliable and inappropriate data; it also failed to attribute an appropriate value to the services provided under the marketing services agreements, wrongly dismissed the rationale behind the airport’s decision to purchase marketing services and wrongly disregarded the wider benefits of Ryanair’s operations for the airport.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, a breach of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law in its determination of the quantum of recoverable aid, in its instructions to the Member State implying that the adjustment of the quantum of recoverable aid is optional, and because of a contradiction between the grounds of the contested decision and its operative part. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, a breach of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law in its determination of the quantum of recoverable aid, in its instructions to the Member State implying that the adjustment of the quantum of recoverable aid is optional, and because of a contradiction between the grounds of the contested decision and its operative part.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p, 1).

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

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/25

---

Action brought on 27 July 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (real nature)

(Case T-458/18)

(2018/C 319/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ‘real nature’ — Application for registration No 16 660 425

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 in Case R 2650/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/26

---

Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

(Case T-438/17) (1)

(2018/C 319/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/26

---

Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

(Case T-469/17) (1)

(2018/C 319/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/26

---

Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Eesti Apteekide Ühendus v Commission

(Case T-10/18) (1)

(2018/C 319/33)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/27

---

Order of the General Court of 6 July 2018 — S & V Technologies v EUIPO — Smoothline (Smoothline)

(Case T-103/18) (1)

(2018/C 319/34)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/27

---

Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH)

(Case T-134/18) (1)

(2018/C 319/35)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

---

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/27

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission

(Case T-238/18) (1)

(2018/C 319/36)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---