# Official Journal C 432/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 432 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6223 December 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 432

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6223 December 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2019/C 432/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2019/C 432/01

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

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2019/C 432/02 | Case C-324/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2014/41/EU — European Investigation Order (EIO) in criminal matters — Article 5(1) — Form set out in Annex A — Section J — Absence of legal remedies in the issuing Member State) | 2 |
| 2019/C 432/03 | Case C-391/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 October 2019 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Own resources — Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) with the European Union — Decision 91/482/EEC — Article 101(2) — Acceptance for import into the European Union free of customs duties of products not originating in the OCT but which are in free circulation in an OCT and are re-exported as such to the European Union — Export certificates EXP — Wrongful issue of certificates by the authorities of an OCT — Article 4(3) TEU — Principle of sincere cooperation — Liability of the Member State having special relations with the OCT concerned — Obligation to compensate the loss of the European Union’s own resources caused by the wrongful issue of export certificates EXP — Imports of aluminium from Anguilla) | 3 |
| 2019/C 432/04 | Case C-395/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 October 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Own resources — Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) with the European Union — Decision 91/482/EEC — Decision 2001/822/EC — Acceptance for import into the European Union free of customs duties of products originating in the OCTs — Movement certificate EUR. 1 — Wrongful issue of certificates by the authorities of an OCT — Customs duties not collected by the importing Member States — Article 4(3) TEU — Principle of sincere cooperation — Liability of the Member State having special relations with the OCTs concerned — Obligation to compensate the loss of the European Union’s own resources caused by the wrongful issue of EUR.1 certificates — Imports of milk powder and rice from Curaçao and of groats and meal from Aruba) | 4 |
| 2019/C 432/05 | Joined Cases C-663/17 P, C-665/17 P and C-669/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 November 2019 — European Central Bank (ECB) v Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA (C-663/17 P), European Commission v Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA, and European Central Bank (ECB) (C-665/17 P), Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA v European Central Bank (ECB) (C-669/17 P) (Appeal — Admissibility — Representation of a party before the Court — Power of attorney given to the lawyer — Power of attorney withdrawn by the liquidator of the appellant company — Further steps in the proceedings by the decision-making body of the appellant company — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Action for annulment before the General Court of the European Union — Admissibility Whether the shareholders of the company whose authorisation has been withdrawn are directly concerned) | 5 |
| 2019/C 432/06 | Case C-192/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 November 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Rule of law — Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU law — Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence — Lowering of the retirement age of judges of the ordinary Polish courts — Possibility of continuing to carry out the duties of judge beyond the newly set age, by authorisation of the Minister for Justice — Article 157 TFEU — Directive 2006/54/EC — Articles 5(a) and 9(1)(f) — Prohibition of discrimination based on sex in matters of pay, employment and occupation — Establishment of different retirement ages for men and women holding the position of judge of the ordinary Polish courts or of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) or that of public prosecutor in Poland) | 6 |
| 2019/C 432/07 | Case C-212/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Prato Nevoso Termo Energy Srl v Provincia di Cuneo, ARPA Piemonte (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2008/98/EC — Waste — Used vegetable oils having undergone chemical treatment — Article 6(1) and (4) — End-of-waste status — Directive 2009/28/EC — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Article 13 — National authorisation, certification and licensing procedures that are applied to plants for the production of electricity, heating or cooling from renewable energy sources — Use of a bioliquid as a power source for an electric power plant) | 7 |
| 2019/C 432/08 | Case C-213/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Roma — Italy) — Adriano Guaitoli and Others v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(1)(a) — Competent court in matters relating to a contract — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Articles 5, 7, 9 and 12 — Montreal Convention — Jurisdiction — Articles 19 and 33 — Application for compensation and compensation for damage resulting from the cancellation and delay of flights) | 8 |
| 2019/C 432/09 | C-281/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 October 2019– Repower AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), repowermap.org (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Revocation of the Board of Appeal’s original decision partially refusing the application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU word mark REPOWER) | 9 |
| 2019/C 432/10 | Joined Cases C-364/18 and C-365/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Eni SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (C-364/18), Shell Italia BV SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Autorità di Regolazione per l’Energia, Reti e Ambiente, formerly Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas e il sistema idrico (Case C-365/18) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 94/22/EC — Energy — Conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons — Royalties — Methods of calculation — QE and PFOR indices — Discriminatory nature) | 10 |
| 2019/C 432/11 | Case C-396/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Gennaro Cafaro v DQ (Request for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 — Annex I, Point FCL.065 — Scope ratione temporis — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Discrimination on grounds of age — Article 2(5) — Article 4(1) — National legislation providing for the automatic termination of the employment relationship at the age of 60 — Aircraft pilots — Protection of national security) | 11 |
| 2019/C 432/12 | Joined Cases C-469/18 and C-470/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — IN (C-469/18), JM (C-470/18) v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Personal Income Tax — Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling) | 11 |
| 2019/C 432/13 | Case C-515/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Regione Autonoma della Sardegna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Public passenger transport services — Rail transport — Public service contracts — Direct award — Obligation to publish a prior information notice in relation to the direct award — Scope) | 12 |
| 2019/C 432/14 | Case C-636/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 October 2019 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI - Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in certain French zones and agglomerations — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — The shortest possible exceedance period — Appropriate measures) | 13 |
| 2019/C 432/15 | Case C-35/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — BU v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of workers — Equal treatment — Income tax — National legislation — Tax exemption for disability allowances — Allowances received in another Member State — Not included — Difference in treatment) | 13 |
| 2019/C 432/16 | Case C-296/19 P: Appeal brought on 10 April 2019 by Etnia Dreams, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 February 2019 in Case T-823/17, Etnia Dreams v EUIPO — Poisson (Etnik) | 14 |
| 2019/C 432/17 | Case C-332/19 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2019 by Hércules Club de Fútbol, S.A.D. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2019 in Case T-134/17, Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission | 14 |
| 2019/C 432/18 | Case C-451/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 12 June 2019 — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo v XU | 15 |
| 2019/C 432/19 | Case C-525/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — GF v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo | 16 |
| 2019/C 432/20 | Case C-532/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2019 — QP v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo | 16 |
| 2019/C 432/21 | Case C-576/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 July 2019 by Intercept Pharma Ltd, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2019 in Case T-377/18: Intercept Pharma and Intercept Pharmaceuticals v EMA | 17 |
| 2019/C 432/22 | Case C-577/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 July 2019 by KID-Systeme GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2019 in Case T-354/18: KID-Systeme v EUIPO | 18 |
| 2019/C 432/23 | Case C-599/19 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2019 by Rietze GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2019 in Case T-43/18, Rietze GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 19 |
| 2019/C 432/24 | Case C-601/19 P: Appeal brought on 7 August 2019 by BP against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-888/16: BP v FRA | 19 |
| 2019/C 432/25 | Case C-622/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 August 2019 by Luz Saúde, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2019 in Case T-357/18 Luz Saúde v EUIPO – Clínica La Luz | 20 |
| 2019/C 432/26 | Case C-675/19 SA: Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order brought on 9 September 2019 — Ntinos Ramon v European Commission | 21 |
| 2019/C 432/27 | Case C-677/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea (Romania) lodged on 11 September 2019 — S.C. Valoris S.R.L. v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Craiova — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Vâlcea and Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu | 21 |
| 2019/C 432/28 | Case C-693/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 13 September 2019 — SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA v YB | 22 |
| 2019/C 432/29 | Case C-705/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2019 — Axpo Trading Ag v Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE | 23 |
| 2019/C 432/30 | Case C-721/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2019 — Sisal SpA v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ministero dell’Economia and delle Finanze | 24 |
| 2019/C 432/31 | Case C-722/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2019 — Stanleybet Malta Limited Magellan, Robotec Ltd v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze | 26 |
| 2019/C 432/32 | Case C-723/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 September 2019 — AIRBNB Ireland UC, Airbnb Payments UK Ltd v Agenzia delle Entrate | 28 |
| 2019/C 432/33 | Case C-726/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 1 October 2019 — Instituto Madrileño de Investigación y Desarrollo Agrario y Alimentario v JN | 29 |
| 2019/C 432/34 | Case C-731/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 4 October 2019 — KM v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Albacete | 30 |
| 2019/C 432/35 | Case C-788/19: Action brought on 23 October 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain | 30 |
| 2019/C 432/36 | Case C-796/19: Action brought on 29 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria | 31 |
| 2019/C 432/37 | Case C-806/19 P: Appeal brought on 31 October 2019 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-105/17: HSBC Holdings plc and Others v Commission | 32 |
| | General Court |
| 2019/C 432/38 | Case T-48/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 –ADDE v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Decision declaring certain expenditure of a political party ineligible for the purposes of a grant for 2015 — Decision awarding a grant for 2017 and making provision for pre-financing at the rate of 33 % of the maximum grant amount and an obligation to provide a bank guarantee — Obligation of impartiality — Rights of the defence — Financial Regulation — Rules of application of the Financial Regulation — Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 — Proportionality — Equal treatment) | 34 |
| 2019/C 432/39 | Case T-332/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — E-Control v ACER (Energy — Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER — Determination of the capacity calculation regions — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissible in part — Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 — ACER’s competence) | 35 |
| 2019/C 432/40 | Case T-333/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Austrian Power Grid and Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz v ACER (Energy — Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER — Determination of the capacity calculation regions — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissible in part — Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 — ACER’s competence) | 36 |
| 2019/C 432/41 | Case T-335/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Help — Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe v Commission (Arbitration clause — Food security programme for very food insecure farming households in Zimbabwe (ECHO/ZWE/BUD/2009/02002) — Reclassification of the action — Audit reports — Audit report of the Court of Auditors — OLAF Report — Reimbursement of the sums paid — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations) | 37 |
| 2019/C 432/42 | Case T-601/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Rubik’s Brand v EUIPO — Simba Toys (Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Second sentence of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 37 |
| 2019/C 432/43 | Case T-778/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Autostrada Wielkopolska v Commission (State aid — Toll-motorway concession — Law providing for an exemption from tolls for certain vehicles — Compensation granted to the concession holder by the Member State for loss of revenue — Shadow toll — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Procedural rights of the interested parties — Commission’s obligation to exercise particular vigilance — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Improvement of the concessionaire’s expected financial situation — Criterion of the private operator in a market economy — Article 107(3)(a) TFEU — Regional State aid) | 38 |
| 2019/C 432/44 | Case T-58/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 —Mahr v EUIPO — Especialidades Vira (Xocolat) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Xocolat — Earlier EU word mark LUXOCOLAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Reasoned statement in the notice of opposition — Rule 15(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 2(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)) | 39 |
| 2019/C 432/45 | Case T-279/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2019 — Alliance Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — AxiCorp (AXICORP ALLIANCE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark AXICORP ALLIANCE — Earlier EU word and figurative marks ALLIANCE — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Interpretation of the description of the goods reproduced in the alphabetical list accompanying the Nice Classification) | 40 |
| 2019/C 432/46 | Case T-310/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 –EPSU and Goudriaan v Commission (Social policy — Dialogue between the social partners at EU level — Agreement entitled General framework for informing and consulting civil servants and employees of central government administrations — Joint request of the signatory parties seeking the implementation of that agreement at EU level — Refusal by the Commission to submit a proposal for a decision to the Council — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Commission’s discretion — Autonomy of the social partners — Principle of subsidiarity — Proportionality) | 41 |
| 2019/C 432/47 | Case T-361/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2019 — APEDA v EUIPO — Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office (SIR BASMATI RICE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark SIR BASMATI RICE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 41 |
| 2019/C 432/48 | Case T-380/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — Intas Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Laboratorios Indas (INTAS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark INTAS — Earlier EU and national figurative trade marks including the word element indas — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs and of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 47 of Regulation 2017/1001) | 42 |
| 2019/C 432/49 | Case T-417/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — CdT v EUIPO (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Obligation to award the translation services required for EUIPO’s functioning to the CdT — Termination of the arrangement between the CdT and EUIPO — Publication of a call for tenders for translation services — Plea of inadmissibility — No interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate in part — Partial inadmissibility) | 43 |
| 2019/C 432/50 | Case T-432/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2019 —Palo v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Pensions — Pension scheme — Severance grant — Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Duty of care) | 44 |
| 2019/C 432/51 | Case T-434/18: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2019 — Vans v EUIPO (ULTRARANGE) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark ULTRARANGE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 45 |
| 2019/C 432/52 | Case T-454/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Biasotto v EUIPO — Oofos (OO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark OO — Earlier EU figurative mark OO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 45 |
| 2019/C 432/53 | Case T-498/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (Happy Moreno choco) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Happy Moreno choco — Earlier national figurative marks MORENO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Substitution of the list of goods covered by the earlier national figurative marks — Rectification of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Article 102(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Legal basis — Previous decision-making practice — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations) | 46 |
| 2019/C 432/54 | Case T-559/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a medical plaster — Disclosure of the earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 47 |
| 2019/C 432/55 | Case T-560/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a medical plaster — Disclosure of the earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 48 |
| 2019/C 432/56 | Case T-568/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — Local-e-motion v EUIPO — Volkswagen (WE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark WE — Earlier national word mark WE — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 48 |
| 2019/C 432/57 | Case T-582/18: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2019 — Boxer Barcelona v EUIPO — X-Technology Swiss (XBOXER BARCELONA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark XBOXER BARCELONA — Earlier EU figurative mark representing the letter x — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Evidence — Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Restriction of the application for registration before the Board of Appeal — Article 49(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 49 |
| 2019/C 432/58 | Case T-628/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2019 — E.I. Papadopoulos v EUIPO — Europastry (fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre — Earlier EU figurative mark Caprice — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 50 |
| 2019/C 432/59 | Case T-684/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2019 — ZV v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Commission’s deputy mediator — Procedure — Assessment of the merits) | 51 |
| 2019/C 432/60 | Case T-708/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FLIS Happy Moreno choco) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark FLIS Happy Moreno choco — Earlier national figurative marks MORENO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Substitution of the list of goods covered by the earlier national figurative marks — Rectification of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Article 102(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Legal basis — Previous decision-making practice — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations) | 51 |
| 2019/C 432/61 | Case T-10/19: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2019 — United States Seafoods v EUIPO — (UNITED STATES SEAFOODS) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark UNITED STATES SEAFOODS — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 52 |
| 2019/C 432/62 | Case T-41/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — MSI Svetovanje v EUIPO — Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria (nume) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark nume — Earlier EU word mark numederm — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 53 |
| 2019/C 432/63 | Case T-240/19: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — A9.com v EUIPO (Representation of a bell) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a bell — Absolute ground for refusal — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 54 |
| 2019/C 432/64 | Case T-557/17: Order of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Liaño Reig v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — Compensation claim — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms — Resolution procedure — Resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español — Partial annulment — Non-severability — Inadmissibility) | 54 |
| 2019/C 432/65 | Case T-727/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — ZW v EIB (Interim measures — Civil service — Inadmissibility) | 55 |
| 2019/C 432/66 | Case T-750/18: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2019 –Briois v Parliament (Institutional law — Member of the European Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Decision to waive parliamentary immunity — Expiry of the electoral mandate — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 56 |
| 2019/C 432/67 | Case T-145/19: Order of the General Court of 17 October 2019 — Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales v Commission (Action for annulment — Grant agreement concluded under the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) — Debit note — Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable — No reclassification of the action — Manifest inadmissibility) | 56 |
| 2019/C 432/68 | Case T-188/19: Order of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — United Kingdom v Commission (Action for annulment — Research and technological development and space — Seventh framework programme of the Union — Audit — Failure to fill out work timesheets — Personnel costs declared ineligible — Decision of the Commission to adopt the audit report as final — Inadmissibility) | 57 |
| 2019/C 432/69 | Case T-211/19: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2019 — Le Pen v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Decision waiving parliamentary immunity — Expiry of an MEP’s mandate — No further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 58 |
| 2019/C 432/70 | Case T-383/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 October 2019 — Walker and Others v Parliament and Council (Interlocutory proceedings — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 — Loss of EU citizenship — Application for interim measures — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Inadmissibility) | 58 |
| 2019/C 432/71 | Case T-688/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – VeriGraft v EASME | 59 |
| 2019/C 432/72 | Case T-690/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – Daily Mail and General Trust plc and Others v Commission | 60 |
| 2019/C 432/73 | Case T-691/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – Hill & Smith Holdings and Hill & Smith Overseas v Commission | 61 |
| 2019/C 432/74 | Case T-692/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – Rentokil Initial and Rentokil Initial 1927 v Commission | 63 |
| 2019/C 432/75 | Case T-703/19: Action brought on 11 October 2019 – DD v FRA | 64 |
| 2019/C 432/76 | Case T-727/19: Action brought on 29 October 2019 — Basaglia v Commission | 65 |
| 2019/C 432/77 | Case T-733/19: Action brought on 29 October 2019 – Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology and Sunowe Solar v Commission | 66 |
| 2019/C 432/78 | Case T-734/19: Action brought on 4 November 2019 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament | 68 |
| 2019/C 432/79 | Case T-735/19: Action brought on 30 October 2019 – Frank Recruitment Group Services v EUIPO – Pearson (PEARSON FRANK) | 69 |
| 2019/C 432/80 | Case T-736/19: Action brought on 4 November 2019 — HA v Commission | 70 |
| 2019/C 432/81 | Case T-737/19: Action brought on 5 November 2019 — Huevos Herrera Mejías v EUIPO — Montesierra (MontiSierra HUEVOS CON SABOR A CAMPO) | 70 |
| 2019/C 432/82 | Case T-739/19: Action brought on 6 November 2019 — Productos Jamaica v EUIPO — Alada 1850 (flordeJamaica) | 71 |
| 2019/C 432/83 | Case T-313/19: Order of the General Court of 23 October 2019 — Taghani v Commission | 72 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2019/C 432/02

Case C-324/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2014/41/EU — European Investigation Order (EIO) in criminal matters — Article 5(1) — Form set out in Annex A — Section J — Absence of legal remedies in the issuing Member State)

2

2019/C 432/03

Case C-391/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 October 2019 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Own resources — Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) with the European Union — Decision 91/482/EEC — Article 101(2) — Acceptance for import into the European Union free of customs duties of products not originating in the OCT but which are in free circulation in an OCT and are re-exported as such to the European Union — Export certificates EXP — Wrongful issue of certificates by the authorities of an OCT — Article 4(3) TEU — Principle of sincere cooperation — Liability of the Member State having special relations with the OCT concerned — Obligation to compensate the loss of the European Union’s own resources caused by the wrongful issue of export certificates EXP — Imports of aluminium from Anguilla)

3

2019/C 432/04

Case C-395/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 October 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Own resources — Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) with the European Union — Decision 91/482/EEC — Decision 2001/822/EC — Acceptance for import into the European Union free of customs duties of products originating in the OCTs — Movement certificate EUR. 1 — Wrongful issue of certificates by the authorities of an OCT — Customs duties not collected by the importing Member States — Article 4(3) TEU — Principle of sincere cooperation — Liability of the Member State having special relations with the OCTs concerned — Obligation to compensate the loss of the European Union’s own resources caused by the wrongful issue of EUR.1 certificates — Imports of milk powder and rice from Curaçao and of groats and meal from Aruba)

4

2019/C 432/05

Joined Cases C-663/17 P, C-665/17 P and C-669/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 November 2019 — European Central Bank (ECB) v Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA (C-663/17 P), European Commission v Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA, and European Central Bank (ECB) (C-665/17 P), Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA v European Central Bank (ECB) (C-669/17 P) (Appeal — Admissibility — Representation of a party before the Court — Power of attorney given to the lawyer — Power of attorney withdrawn by the liquidator of the appellant company — Further steps in the proceedings by the decision-making body of the appellant company — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Action for annulment before the General Court of the European Union — Admissibility Whether the shareholders of the company whose authorisation has been withdrawn are directly concerned)

5

2019/C 432/06

Case C-192/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 November 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Rule of law — Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU law — Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence — Lowering of the retirement age of judges of the ordinary Polish courts — Possibility of continuing to carry out the duties of judge beyond the newly set age, by authorisation of the Minister for Justice — Article 157 TFEU — Directive 2006/54/EC — Articles 5(a) and 9(1)(f) — Prohibition of discrimination based on sex in matters of pay, employment and occupation — Establishment of different retirement ages for men and women holding the position of judge of the ordinary Polish courts or of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) or that of public prosecutor in Poland)

6

2019/C 432/07

Case C-212/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Prato Nevoso Termo Energy Srl v Provincia di Cuneo, ARPA Piemonte (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2008/98/EC — Waste — Used vegetable oils having undergone chemical treatment — Article 6(1) and (4) — End-of-waste status — Directive 2009/28/EC — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Article 13 — National authorisation, certification and licensing procedures that are applied to plants for the production of electricity, heating or cooling from renewable energy sources — Use of a bioliquid as a power source for an electric power plant)

7

2019/C 432/08

Case C-213/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Roma — Italy) — Adriano Guaitoli and Others v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(1)(a) — Competent court in matters relating to a contract — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Articles 5, 7, 9 and 12 — Montreal Convention — Jurisdiction — Articles 19 and 33 — Application for compensation and compensation for damage resulting from the cancellation and delay of flights)

8

2019/C 432/09

C-281/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 October 2019– Repower AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), repowermap.org (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Revocation of the Board of Appeal’s original decision partially refusing the application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU word mark REPOWER)

9

2019/C 432/10

Joined Cases C-364/18 and C-365/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Eni SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (C-364/18), Shell Italia BV SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Autorità di Regolazione per l’Energia, Reti e Ambiente, formerly Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas e il sistema idrico (Case C-365/18) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 94/22/EC — Energy — Conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons — Royalties — Methods of calculation — QE and PFOR indices — Discriminatory nature)

10

2019/C 432/11

Case C-396/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Gennaro Cafaro v DQ (Request for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 — Annex I, Point FCL.065 — Scope ratione temporis — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Discrimination on grounds of age — Article 2(5) — Article 4(1) — National legislation providing for the automatic termination of the employment relationship at the age of 60 — Aircraft pilots — Protection of national security)

11

2019/C 432/12

Joined Cases C-469/18 and C-470/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — IN (C-469/18), JM (C-470/18) v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Personal Income Tax — Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

11

2019/C 432/13

Case C-515/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Regione Autonoma della Sardegna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Public passenger transport services — Rail transport — Public service contracts — Direct award — Obligation to publish a prior information notice in relation to the direct award — Scope)

12

2019/C 432/14

Case C-636/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 October 2019 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI - Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in certain French zones and agglomerations — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — The shortest possible exceedance period — Appropriate measures)

13

2019/C 432/15

Case C-35/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — BU v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of workers — Equal treatment — Income tax — National legislation — Tax exemption for disability allowances — Allowances received in another Member State — Not included — Difference in treatment)

13

2019/C 432/16

Case C-296/19 P: Appeal brought on 10 April 2019 by Etnia Dreams, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 February 2019 in Case T-823/17, Etnia Dreams v EUIPO — Poisson (Etnik)

14

2019/C 432/17

Case C-332/19 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2019 by Hércules Club de Fútbol, S.A.D. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2019 in Case T-134/17, Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

14

2019/C 432/18

Case C-451/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 12 June 2019 — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo v XU

15

2019/C 432/19

Case C-525/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — GF v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

16

2019/C 432/20

Case C-532/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2019 — QP v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

16

2019/C 432/21

Case C-576/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 July 2019 by Intercept Pharma Ltd, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2019 in Case T-377/18: Intercept Pharma and Intercept Pharmaceuticals v EMA

17

2019/C 432/22

Case C-577/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 July 2019 by KID-Systeme GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2019 in Case T-354/18: KID-Systeme v EUIPO

18

2019/C 432/23

Case C-599/19 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2019 by Rietze GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2019 in Case T-43/18, Rietze GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

19

2019/C 432/24

Case C-601/19 P: Appeal brought on 7 August 2019 by BP against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-888/16: BP v FRA

19

2019/C 432/25

Case C-622/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 August 2019 by Luz Saúde, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2019 in Case T-357/18 Luz Saúde v EUIPO – Clínica La Luz

20

2019/C 432/26

Case C-675/19 SA: Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order brought on 9 September 2019 — Ntinos Ramon v European Commission

21

2019/C 432/27

Case C-677/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea (Romania) lodged on 11 September 2019 — S.C. Valoris S.R.L. v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Craiova — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Vâlcea and Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

21

2019/C 432/28

Case C-693/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 13 September 2019 — SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA v YB

22

2019/C 432/29

Case C-705/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2019 — Axpo Trading Ag v Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

23

2019/C 432/30

Case C-721/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2019 — Sisal SpA v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ministero dell’Economia and delle Finanze

24

2019/C 432/31

Case C-722/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2019 — Stanleybet Malta Limited Magellan, Robotec Ltd v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

26

2019/C 432/32

Case C-723/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 September 2019 — AIRBNB Ireland UC, Airbnb Payments UK Ltd v Agenzia delle Entrate

28

2019/C 432/33

Case C-726/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 1 October 2019 — Instituto Madrileño de Investigación y Desarrollo Agrario y Alimentario v JN

29

2019/C 432/34

Case C-731/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 4 October 2019 — KM v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Albacete

30

2019/C 432/35

Case C-788/19: Action brought on 23 October 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

30

2019/C 432/36

Case C-796/19: Action brought on 29 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

31

2019/C 432/37

Case C-806/19 P: Appeal brought on 31 October 2019 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-105/17: HSBC Holdings plc and Others v Commission

32

General Court

2019/C 432/38

Case T-48/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 –ADDE v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Decision declaring certain expenditure of a political party ineligible for the purposes of a grant for 2015 — Decision awarding a grant for 2017 and making provision for pre-financing at the rate of 33 % of the maximum grant amount and an obligation to provide a bank guarantee — Obligation of impartiality — Rights of the defence — Financial Regulation — Rules of application of the Financial Regulation — Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 — Proportionality — Equal treatment)

34

2019/C 432/39

Case T-332/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — E-Control v ACER (Energy — Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER — Determination of the capacity calculation regions — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissible in part — Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 — ACER’s competence)

35

2019/C 432/40

Case T-333/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Austrian Power Grid and Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz v ACER (Energy — Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER — Determination of the capacity calculation regions — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissible in part — Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 — ACER’s competence)

36

2019/C 432/41

Case T-335/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Help — Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe v Commission (Arbitration clause — Food security programme for very food insecure farming households in Zimbabwe (ECHO/ZWE/BUD/2009/02002) — Reclassification of the action — Audit reports — Audit report of the Court of Auditors — OLAF Report — Reimbursement of the sums paid — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations)

37

2019/C 432/42

Case T-601/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Rubik’s Brand v EUIPO — Simba Toys (Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Second sentence of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001))

37

2019/C 432/43

Case T-778/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Autostrada Wielkopolska v Commission (State aid — Toll-motorway concession — Law providing for an exemption from tolls for certain vehicles — Compensation granted to the concession holder by the Member State for loss of revenue — Shadow toll — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Procedural rights of the interested parties — Commission’s obligation to exercise particular vigilance — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Improvement of the concessionaire’s expected financial situation — Criterion of the private operator in a market economy — Article 107(3)(a) TFEU — Regional State aid)

38

2019/C 432/44

Case T-58/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 —Mahr v EUIPO — Especialidades Vira (Xocolat) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Xocolat — Earlier EU word mark LUXOCOLAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Reasoned statement in the notice of opposition — Rule 15(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 2(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))

39

2019/C 432/45

Case T-279/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2019 — Alliance Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — AxiCorp (AXICORP ALLIANCE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark AXICORP ALLIANCE — Earlier EU word and figurative marks ALLIANCE — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Interpretation of the description of the goods reproduced in the alphabetical list accompanying the Nice Classification)

40

2019/C 432/46

Case T-310/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 –EPSU and Goudriaan v Commission (Social policy — Dialogue between the social partners at EU level — Agreement entitled General framework for informing and consulting civil servants and employees of central government administrations — Joint request of the signatory parties seeking the implementation of that agreement at EU level — Refusal by the Commission to submit a proposal for a decision to the Council — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Commission’s discretion — Autonomy of the social partners — Principle of subsidiarity — Proportionality)

41

2019/C 432/47

Case T-361/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2019 — APEDA v EUIPO — Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office (SIR BASMATI RICE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark SIR BASMATI RICE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

41

2019/C 432/48

Case T-380/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — Intas Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Laboratorios Indas (INTAS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark INTAS — Earlier EU and national figurative trade marks including the word element indas — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs and of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 47 of Regulation 2017/1001)

42

2019/C 432/49

Case T-417/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — CdT v EUIPO (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Obligation to award the translation services required for EUIPO’s functioning to the CdT — Termination of the arrangement between the CdT and EUIPO — Publication of a call for tenders for translation services — Plea of inadmissibility — No interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate in part — Partial inadmissibility)

43

2019/C 432/50

Case T-432/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2019 —Palo v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Pensions — Pension scheme — Severance grant — Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Duty of care)

44

2019/C 432/51

Case T-434/18: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2019 — Vans v EUIPO (ULTRARANGE) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark ULTRARANGE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

45

2019/C 432/52

Case T-454/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Biasotto v EUIPO — Oofos (OO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark OO — Earlier EU figurative mark OO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

45

2019/C 432/53

Case T-498/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (Happy Moreno choco) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Happy Moreno choco — Earlier national figurative marks MORENO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Substitution of the list of goods covered by the earlier national figurative marks — Rectification of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Article 102(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Legal basis — Previous decision-making practice — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations)

46

2019/C 432/54

Case T-559/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a medical plaster — Disclosure of the earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

47

2019/C 432/55

Case T-560/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a medical plaster — Disclosure of the earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

48

2019/C 432/56

Case T-568/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — Local-e-motion v EUIPO — Volkswagen (WE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark WE — Earlier national word mark WE — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

48

2019/C 432/57

Case T-582/18: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2019 — Boxer Barcelona v EUIPO — X-Technology Swiss (XBOXER BARCELONA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark XBOXER BARCELONA — Earlier EU figurative mark representing the letter x — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Evidence — Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Restriction of the application for registration before the Board of Appeal — Article 49(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

49

2019/C 432/58

Case T-628/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2019 — E.I. Papadopoulos v EUIPO — Europastry (fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre — Earlier EU figurative mark Caprice — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

50

2019/C 432/59

Case T-684/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2019 — ZV v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Commission’s deputy mediator — Procedure — Assessment of the merits)

51

2019/C 432/60

Case T-708/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FLIS Happy Moreno choco) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark FLIS Happy Moreno choco — Earlier national figurative marks MORENO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Substitution of the list of goods covered by the earlier national figurative marks — Rectification of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Article 102(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Legal basis — Previous decision-making practice — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations)

51

2019/C 432/61

Case T-10/19: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2019 — United States Seafoods v EUIPO — (UNITED STATES SEAFOODS) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark UNITED STATES SEAFOODS — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

52

2019/C 432/62

Case T-41/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — MSI Svetovanje v EUIPO — Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria (nume) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark nume — Earlier EU word mark numederm — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

53

2019/C 432/63

Case T-240/19: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — A9.com v EUIPO (Representation of a bell) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a bell — Absolute ground for refusal — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

54

2019/C 432/64

Case T-557/17: Order of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Liaño Reig v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — Compensation claim — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms — Resolution procedure — Resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español — Partial annulment — Non-severability — Inadmissibility)

54

2019/C 432/65

Case T-727/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — ZW v EIB (Interim measures — Civil service — Inadmissibility)

55

2019/C 432/66

Case T-750/18: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2019 –Briois v Parliament (Institutional law — Member of the European Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Decision to waive parliamentary immunity — Expiry of the electoral mandate — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

56

2019/C 432/67

Case T-145/19: Order of the General Court of 17 October 2019 — Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales v Commission (Action for annulment — Grant agreement concluded under the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) — Debit note — Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable — No reclassification of the action — Manifest inadmissibility)

56

2019/C 432/68

Case T-188/19: Order of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — United Kingdom v Commission (Action for annulment — Research and technological development and space — Seventh framework programme of the Union — Audit — Failure to fill out work timesheets — Personnel costs declared ineligible — Decision of the Commission to adopt the audit report as final — Inadmissibility)

57

2019/C 432/69

Case T-211/19: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2019 — Le Pen v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Decision waiving parliamentary immunity — Expiry of an MEP’s mandate — No further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

58

2019/C 432/70

Case T-383/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 October 2019 — Walker and Others v Parliament and Council (Interlocutory proceedings — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 — Loss of EU citizenship — Application for interim measures — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Inadmissibility)

58

2019/C 432/71

Case T-688/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – VeriGraft v EASME

59

2019/C 432/72

Case T-690/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – Daily Mail and General Trust plc and Others v Commission

60

2019/C 432/73

Case T-691/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – Hill & Smith Holdings and Hill & Smith Overseas v Commission

61

2019/C 432/74

Case T-692/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – Rentokil Initial and Rentokil Initial 1927 v Commission

63

2019/C 432/75

Case T-703/19: Action brought on 11 October 2019 – DD v FRA

64

2019/C 432/76

Case T-727/19: Action brought on 29 October 2019 — Basaglia v Commission

65

2019/C 432/77

Case T-733/19: Action brought on 29 October 2019 – Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology and Sunowe Solar v Commission

66

2019/C 432/78

Case T-734/19: Action brought on 4 November 2019 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

68

2019/C 432/79

Case T-735/19: Action brought on 30 October 2019 – Frank Recruitment Group Services v EUIPO – Pearson (PEARSON FRANK)

69

2019/C 432/80

Case T-736/19: Action brought on 4 November 2019 — HA v Commission

70

2019/C 432/81

Case T-737/19: Action brought on 5 November 2019 — Huevos Herrera Mejías v EUIPO — Montesierra (MontiSierra HUEVOS CON SABOR A CAMPO)

70

2019/C 432/82

Case T-739/19: Action brought on 6 November 2019 — Productos Jamaica v EUIPO — Alada 1850 (flordeJamaica)

71

2019/C 432/83

Case T-313/19: Order of the General Court of 23 October 2019 — Taghani v Commission

72

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/1

---

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

(2019/C 432/01)

Last publication

OJ C 423, 16.12.2019

Past publications

OJ C 413, 9.12.2019

OJ C 406, 2.12.2019

OJ C 399, 25.11.2019

OJ C 383, 11.11.2019

OJ C 372, 4.11.2019

OJ C 363, 28.10.2019

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov

(Case C-324/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2014/41/EU - European Investigation Order (EIO) in criminal matters - Article 5(1) - Form set out in Annex A - Section J - Absence of legal remedies in the issuing Member State)

(2019/C 432/02)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main proceedings

Ivan Gavanozov

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, read in conjunction with Section J of the form set out in Annex A to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the judicial authority of a Member State does not, when issuing a European Investigation Order, have to include in that section a description of the legal remedies, if any, which are provided for in its Member State against the issuing of such an order.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 October 2019 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-391/17) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Own resources - Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) with the European Union - Decision 91/482/EEC - Article 101(2) - Acceptance for import into the European Union free of customs duties of products not originating in the OCT but which are in free circulation in an OCT and are re-exported as such to the European Union - Export certificates EXP - Wrongful issue of certificates by the authorities of an OCT - Article 4(3) TEU - Principle of sincere cooperation - Liability of the Member State having special relations with the OCT concerned - Obligation to compensate the loss of the European Union’s own resources caused by the wrongful issue of export certificates EXP - Imports of aluminium from Anguilla)

(2019/C 432/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, J.-F. Brakeland, L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by J. Kraehling, G. Brown, R. Fadoju and S. Brandon, acting as Agents, and by K. Beal QC and P. Luckhurst, Barristers, and subsequently by S. Brandon and F. Shibli, acting as Agents, and by K. Beal QC and P. Luckhurst, Barristers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, P. Huurnink and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to compensate the loss of own resources resulting from the wrongful issue, in the light of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community, by the authorities of Anguilla, of export certificates EXP in respect of the imports of aluminium from Anguilla during the period 1999/2000, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to compensate the loss of own resources resulting from the wrongful issue, in the light of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community, by the authorities of Anguilla, of export certificates EXP in respect of the imports of aluminium from Anguilla during the period 1999/2000, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 October 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-395/17) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Own resources - Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) with the European Union - Decision 91/482/EEC - Decision 2001/822/EC - Acceptance for import into the European Union free of customs duties of products originating in the OCTs - Movement certificate EUR. 1 - Wrongful issue of certificates by the authorities of an OCT - Customs duties not collected by the importing Member States - Article 4(3) TEU - Principle of sincere cooperation - Liability of the Member State having special relations with the OCTs concerned - Obligation to compensate the loss of the European Union’s own resources caused by the wrongful issue of EUR.1 certificates - Imports of milk powder and rice from Curaçao and of groats and meal from Aruba)

(2019/C 432/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, A. Caeiros, L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, M.H.S. Gijzen, P. Huurnink and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by J. Kraehling, G. Brown, R. Fadoju and S. Brandon, acting as Agents, and by K. Beal QC and P. Luckhurst, Barristers, and subsequently by S. Brandon and F. Shibli, acting as Agents, and by K. Beal QC and P. Luckhurst, Barristers)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to compensate the loss of own resources resulting from the wrongful issue, in the light of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community and then of Council Decision 2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community, by the authorities of Curaçao and of Aruba, of movement certificates EUR. 1 in respect of, respectively, imports of milk powder and rice from Curaçao during the period 1997/2000 and imports of groats and meal from Aruba during the period 2002/2003, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to compensate the loss of own resources resulting from the wrongful issue, in the light of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community and then of Council Decision 2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community, by the authorities of Curaçao and of Aruba, of movement certificates EUR. 1 in respect of, respectively, imports of milk powder and rice from Curaçao during the period 1997/2000 and imports of groats and meal from Aruba during the period 2002/2003, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 November 2019 — European Central Bank (ECB) v Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA (C-663/17 P), European Commission v Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA, and European Central Bank (ECB) (C-665/17 P), Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA v European Central Bank (ECB) (C-669/17 P)

(Joined Cases C-663/17 P, C-665/17 P and C-669/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Admissibility - Representation of a party before the Court - Power of attorney given to the lawyer - Power of attorney withdrawn by the liquidator of the appellant company - Further steps in the proceedings by the decision-making body of the appellant company - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation - Action for annulment before the General Court of the European Union - Admissibility Whether the shareholders of the company whose authorisation has been withdrawn are directly concerned)

(2019/C 432/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-663/17 P)

Appellant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: E. Koupepidou and C. Hernández Saseta, acting as Agents, by B. Schneider, Rechtsanwalt, and by M. Petite, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA (represented by: M. Kirchner, L. Feddern and O.H. Behrends, Rechtsanwälte)

Intervener in support of the appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė, V. Di Bucci and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

(Case C-665/17 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė, V. Di Bucci and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA (represented by: M. Kirchner, L. Feddern and O.H. Behrends, Rechtsanwälte), and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: E. Koupepidou and C. Hernández Saseta, acting as Agents, by B. Schneider, Rechtsanwalt, and by M. Petite, avocat)

(Case C-669/17 P)

Appellants: Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA (represented by: M. Kirchner, L. Feddern and O.H. Behrends, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: E. Koupepidou and C. Hernández Saseta, acting as Agents, by B. Schneider, Rechtsanwalt, and by M. Petite, avocat)

Intervener in support of the European Central Bank: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė, V. Di Bucci and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal in Case C-669/17 P as inadmissible, in so far as it was lodged by Mr Ivan Fursin, Mr Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal in Case C-669/17 P as inadmissible, in so far as it was lodged by Mr Ivan Fursin, Mr Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA;

| 2. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 12 September 2017, Fursin and Others v ECB (T-247/16, not published, EU:T:2017:623); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 12 September 2017, Fursin and Others v ECB (T-247/16, not published, EU:T:2017:623);

| 3. | Rejects the plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Central Bank, in so far as it concerns the action brought by Trasta Komercbanka AS seeking the annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 529900WIP0INFDAWTJ81/1 WOANCA-2016-0005 of the European Central Bank of 3 March 2016 withdrawing the authorisation granted to Trasta Komercbanka; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Rejects the plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Central Bank, in so far as it concerns the action brought by Trasta Komercbanka AS seeking the annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 529900WIP0INFDAWTJ81/1 WOANCA-2016-0005 of the European Central Bank of 3 March 2016 withdrawing the authorisation granted to Trasta Komercbanka;

| 4. | Dismisses the action brought by Mr Ivan Fursin, Mr Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA, seeking annulment of the European Central Bank’s decision of 3 March 2016; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the action brought by Mr Ivan Fursin, Mr Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA, seeking annulment of the European Central Bank’s decision of 3 March 2016;

| 5. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union so that it may give a ruling on the action brought by Trasta Komercbanka AS seeking annulment of the European Central Bank’s decision of 3 March 2016; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union so that it may give a ruling on the action brought by Trasta Komercbanka AS seeking annulment of the European Central Bank’s decision of 3 March 2016;

| 6. | Orders Trasta Komercbanka AS, Mr Ivan Fursin, Mr Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank and the European Commission in connection with the appeals in Cases C-663/17 P and C-665/17 P, respectively; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders Trasta Komercbanka AS, Mr Ivan Fursin, Mr Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank and the European Commission in connection with the appeals in Cases C-663/17 P and C-665/17 P, respectively;

| 7. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs in Case C-663/17 P; |
| --- | --- |

7.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs in Case C-663/17 P;

| 8. | Orders Mr Ivan Fursin, Mr Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank in connection with the proceedings at first instance relating to the action brought by those shareholders; |
| --- | --- |

8.

Orders Mr Ivan Fursin, Mr Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank in connection with the proceedings at first instance relating to the action brought by those shareholders;

| 9. | Reserves the costs in Case C-669/17 P. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Reserves the costs in Case C-669/17 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 November 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-192/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Rule of law - Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU law - Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence - Lowering of the retirement age of judges of the ordinary Polish courts - Possibility of continuing to carry out the duties of judge beyond the newly set age, by authorisation of the Minister for Justice - Article 157 TFEU - Directive 2006/54/EC - Articles 5(a) and 9(1)(f) - Prohibition of discrimination based on sex in matters of pay, employment and occupation - Establishment of different retirement ages for men and women holding the position of judge of the ordinary Polish courts or of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) or that of public prosecutor in Poland)

(2019/C 432/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Szmytkowska, K. Banks, C. Valero and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, K. Majcher and S. Żyrek, acting as Agents, and W. Gontarski, adwokat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, in establishing, by Article 13(1) to (3) of the ustawa o zmianie ustawy — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Law amending the Law on the system of ordinary courts and certain other laws) of 12 July 2017, a different retirement age for men and women who are judges in the ordinary Polish courts and the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) or are public prosecutors in Poland, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 157 TFEU and Articles 5(a) and 9(1)(f) of 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; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, in establishing, by Article 13(1) to (3) of the ustawa o zmianie ustawy — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Law amending the Law on the system of ordinary courts and certain other laws) of 12 July 2017, a different retirement age for men and women who are judges in the ordinary Polish courts and the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) or are public prosecutors in Poland, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 157 TFEU and Articles 5(a) and 9(1)(f) of 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;

| 2. | Declares that, in granting, pursuant to Article 1(26)(b) and (c) of the Law amending the Law on the system of ordinary courts and certain other laws of 12 July 2017, the Minister for Justice (Poland) the right to decide whether or not to authorise judges of the ordinary Polish courts to continue to carry out their duties beyond the new retirement age of those judges, as lowered by Article 13(1) of that law, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that, in granting, pursuant to Article 1(26)(b) and (c) of the Law amending the Law on the system of ordinary courts and certain other laws of 12 July 2017, the Minister for Justice (Poland) the right to decide whether or not to authorise judges of the ordinary Polish courts to continue to carry out their duties beyond the new retirement age of those judges, as lowered by Article 13(1) of that law, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Prato Nevoso Termo Energy Srl v Provincia di Cuneo, ARPA Piemonte

(Case C-212/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2008/98/EC - Waste - Used vegetable oils having undergone chemical treatment - Article 6(1) and (4) - End-of-waste status - Directive 2009/28/EC - Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Article 13 - National authorisation, certification and licensing procedures that are applied to plants for the production of electricity, heating or cooling from renewable energy sources - Use of a bioliquid as a power source for an electric power plant)

(2019/C 432/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prato Nevoso Termo Energy Srl

Defendants: Provincia di Cuneo, ARPA Piemonte

Intervening party: Comune di Frabosa Sottana

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and (4) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives and Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015, read together, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which an application for authorisation to replace methane, as a power source for an electric power plant producing atmospheric emissions, with a substance derived from the chemical treatment of used vegetable oils, must be refused, on the ground that that substance is not included in the list of categories of biomass fuels authorised for that purpose and that that list may be amended only by an internal act of general application, the adoption procedure of which is not coordinated with the administrative procedure for authorising the use of such a substance as fuel, if the Member State could consider, without making a manifest error of assessment, that it has not been demonstrated that the use of that vegetable oil, in such circumstances, satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98 and, in particular, is devoid of any possible adverse impact on the environment and human health. It falls to the national court to ascertain whether that is the case in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Roma — Italy) — Adriano Guaitoli and Others v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

(Case C-213/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(1)(a) - Competent court in matters relating to a contract - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 5, 7, 9 and 12 - Montreal Convention - Jurisdiction - Articles 19 and 33 - Application for compensation and compensation for damage resulting from the cancellation and delay of flights)

(2019/C 432/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Adriano Guaitoli, Concepción Casan Rodriguez, Alessandro Celano Tomassoni, Antonia Cirilli, Lucia Cortini, Mario Giuli, Patrizia Padroni

Defendant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7(1), Article 67 and Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and Article 33 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Member State hearing an action to obtain both compliance with the flat-rate and standardised rights provided for in Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, and compensation for further damage falling within the scope of that convention, must assess its jurisdiction, for the first head of claim, in the light of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, and, for the second head of claim, in the light of Article 33 of that convention; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7(1), Article 67 and Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and Article 33 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Member State hearing an action to obtain both compliance with the flat-rate and standardised rights provided for in Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, and compensation for further damage falling within the scope of that convention, must assess its jurisdiction, for the first head of claim, in the light of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, and, for the second head of claim, in the light of Article 33 of that convention;

| 2. | Article 33(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, must be interpreted, as regards actions for damages falling within the scope of that convention, as governing not only the allocation of jurisdiction as between the States Parties to the convention, but also the allocation of territorial jurisdiction as between the courts of each of those States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 33(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, must be interpreted, as regards actions for damages falling within the scope of that convention, as governing not only the allocation of jurisdiction as between the States Parties to the convention, but also the allocation of territorial jurisdiction as between the courts of each of those States.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 October 2019– Repower AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), repowermap.org

(C-281/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Union trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Revocation of the Board of Appeal’s original decision partially refusing the application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU word mark REPOWER)

(2019/C 432/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Repower AG (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, H. P. Kunz-Hallstein, and V. Kling, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Botis and J.F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents) and repowermap.org (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | orders Repower AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Repower AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Eni SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (C-364/18), Shell Italia BV SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Autorità di Regolazione per l’Energia, Reti e Ambiente, formerly Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas e il sistema idrico (Case C-365/18)

(Joined Cases C-364/18 and C-365/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 94/22/EC - Energy - Conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons - Royalties - Methods of calculation - QE and PFOR indices - Discriminatory nature)

(2019/C 432/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-364/18)

Applicant: Eni SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Interveners: Autorità di Regolazione per l’Energia, Reti e Ambiente, formerly Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas e il sistema idrico, Regione Basilicata, Comune di Viggiano, Regione Calabria, Comune di Ravenna, Assomineraria

(Case C-365/18)

Applicant: Shell Italia BV SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Autorità di Regolazione per l’Energia, Reti e Ambiente, formerly Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas e il sistema idrico

Interveners: Regione Basilicata, Comune di Viggiano, Assomineraria

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons, read in the light of the sixth recital thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the amount of royalties payable by holders of licences for the extraction of natural gas is calculated on the basis of an index based on the prices of oil and other fuels in the medium and long term and not an index that reflects the short-term market price of natural gas.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Gennaro Cafaro v DQ

(Case C-396/18) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 - Annex I, Point FCL.065 - Scope ratione temporis - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Discrimination on grounds of age - Article 2(5) - Article 4(1) - National legislation providing for the automatic termination of the employment relationship at the age of 60 - Aircraft pilots - Protection of national security)

(2019/C 432/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gennaro Cafaro

Defendant: DQ

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(5) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the employment relationship of pilots employed by a company operating aircraft used for activities associated with protecting the national security of a Member State terminates automatically once they reach the age of 60, provided that such legislation is necessary for public security within the meaning of that provision, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the employment relationship of pilots employed by a company operating aircraft used for activities associated with protecting the national security of a Member State terminates automatically once they reach the age of 60, provided that such legislation is proportionate within the meaning of that provision, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — IN (C-469/18), JM (C-470/18) v Belgische Staat

(Joined Cases C-469/18 and C-470/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Personal Income Tax - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2019/C 432/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IN (C-469/18), JM (C-470/18)

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

The requests for a preliminary ruling made by the Hof van Cassatie (Court of Cassation, Belgium) by decisions of 28 June 2018 are inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Regione Autonoma della Sardegna

(Case C-515/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Public passenger transport services - Rail transport - Public service contracts - Direct award - Obligation to publish a prior information notice in relation to the direct award - Scope)

(2019/C 432/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sardegna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Defendant: Regione Autonoma della Sardegna

Intervener: Trenitalia SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that competent national authorities which intend directly to award a public service contract for the transport of passengers by rail are not required, first, to publish or communicate to any interested economic operators all the information necessary in order to enable them to submit a sufficiently detailed offer which may be subject to a comparative assessment and, second, to carry out such a comparative assessment of all bids that may have been received following publication of that information.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 October 2019 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-636/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) and Annex XI - Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in certain French zones and agglomerations - Article 23(1) - Annex XV - ‘The shortest possible’ exceedance period - Appropriate measures)

(2019/C 432/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, E. Manhaeve and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, J. Traband and A. Alidière, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | By systematically and persistently exceeding the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) since 1 January 2010 in twelve French agglomerations and air quality zones, namely Marseille (FR03A02), Toulon (FR03A03), Paris (FR04A01), Auvergne-Clermont-Ferrand (FR07A01), Montpellier (FR08A01), Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées (FR12A01), zone urbaine régionale (Regional urban area, ‘ZUR’) Reims Champagne-Ardenne (FR14N10), Grenoble Rhône-Alpes (FR15A01), Strasbourg (FR16A02), Lyon-Rhône-Alpes (FR20A01), ZUR Vallée de l’Arve Rhône-Alpes (FR20N10) and Nice (FR24A01), and by systematically and persistently exceeding the hourly limit value for NO2 since 1 January 2010 in two agglomerations and air quality zones, namely Paris (FR04A01) and Lyon Rhône-Alpes (FR20A01), the French Republic has, since that date, continued to fail to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, read in conjunction with Annex XI to that directive, since the coming into force of the limit values in 2010.
  The French Republic has failed, since 11 June 2010, to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex XV to that directive, and in particular the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive to ensure that the exceedance period is kept as short as possible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

By systematically and persistently exceeding the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) since 1 January 2010 in twelve French agglomerations and air quality zones, namely Marseille (FR03A02), Toulon (FR03A03), Paris (FR04A01), Auvergne-Clermont-Ferrand (FR07A01), Montpellier (FR08A01), Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées (FR12A01), zone urbaine régionale (Regional urban area, ‘ZUR’) Reims Champagne-Ardenne (FR14N10), Grenoble Rhône-Alpes (FR15A01), Strasbourg (FR16A02), Lyon-Rhône-Alpes (FR20A01), ZUR Vallée de l’Arve Rhône-Alpes (FR20N10) and Nice (FR24A01), and by systematically and persistently exceeding the hourly limit value for NO2 since 1 January 2010 in two agglomerations and air quality zones, namely Paris (FR04A01) and Lyon Rhône-Alpes (FR20A01), the French Republic has, since that date, continued to fail to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, read in conjunction with Annex XI to that directive, since the coming into force of the limit values in 2010.

The French Republic has failed, since 11 June 2010, to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex XV to that directive, and in particular the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive to ensure that the exceedance period is kept as short as possible;

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

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — BU v État belge

(Case C-35/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of workers - Equal treatment - Income tax - National legislation - Tax exemption for disability allowances - Allowances received in another Member State - Not included - Difference in treatment)

(2019/C 432/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BU

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, without providing justification in that regard, a matter which is however for the referring court to verify, provides that the tax exemption applicable to disability allowances is subject to the condition that those allowances are paid by a body of the Member State concerned and, therefore, excludes from that exemption allowances of the same nature paid by another Member State, even where the recipient of those allowances is a resident of the Member State concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/14

---

Appeal brought on 10 April 2019 by Etnia Dreams, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 February 2019 in Case T-823/17, Etnia Dreams v EUIPO — Poisson (Etnik)

(Case C-296/19 P)

(2019/C 432/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Etnia Dreams, S.L. (represented by: P. Gago Comes, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 6 November 2019, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Etnia Dreams, S.L. to bear its own costs.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/14

---

Appeal brought on 23 April 2019 by Hércules Club de Fútbol, S.A.D. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2019 in Case T-134/17, Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case C-332/19 P)

(2019/C 432/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, S.A.D. (represented by: Y. Martínez Mata and S. Rating, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 6 November 2019, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Hércules Club de Fútbol, S.A.D. to bear its own costs.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 12 June 2019 — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo v XU

(Case C-451/19)

(2019/C 432/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

Defendant: XU

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the requirement that a Spanish citizen who has not exercised his right of free movement must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Royal Decree 240/2007, as a necessary condition for a right of residence being granted to the third-country minor child of the third-country spouse, in accordance with Article 7(2) of that Royal Decree, liable, in the event that those conditions are not satisfied, to constitute an infringement of Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) if, as a result of the refusal to grant that right, the Spanish citizen is compelled to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole?
  All of the above presupposes the requirement laid down in Article 68 of the Spanish Civil Code (Código Civil) for spouses to live together. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the requirement that a Spanish citizen who has not exercised his right of free movement must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Royal Decree 240/2007, as a necessary condition for a right of residence being granted to the third-country minor child of the third-country spouse, in accordance with Article 7(2) of that Royal Decree, liable, in the event that those conditions are not satisfied, to constitute an infringement of Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) if, as a result of the refusal to grant that right, the Spanish citizen is compelled to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole?

All of the above presupposes the requirement laid down in Article 68 of the Spanish Civil Code (Código Civil) for spouses to live together.

| 2. | In any event, notwithstanding the foregoing, does the practice of the Spanish State of automatically applying the rule laid down in Article 7 of Royal Decree 240/2007, and refusing to grant a residence permit to the third-country national who is the minor child of an EU citizen’s third-country spouse, where that EU citizen has never exercised freedom of movement (those spouses in turn having a Spanish child who is a minor who has also never exercised freedom of movement), solely and exclusively on the ground that the EU citizen does not satisfy the conditions laid down in that provision, without having examined specifically and individually whether there exists a relationship of dependency between that EU citizen and the third-country national of such a nature that, for any reason and in the light of the circumstances, it would mean that were the third-country national refused a right of residence, the EU citizen could not be separated from the family member dependent on him and would have to leave the territory of the European Union, infringe Article 20 TFEU in the terms set out above? And is this the case in particular where the Spanish citizen and his third-country spouse are in turn the parents of a Spanish minor who could also have to leave Spanish territory following his parents?
  All of this is in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including, inter alia, [the] judgment of 8 May 2018, C-82/16, K.A. and Others v Belgische Staat. (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

In any event, notwithstanding the foregoing, does the practice of the Spanish State of automatically applying the rule laid down in Article 7 of Royal Decree 240/2007, and refusing to grant a residence permit to the third-country national who is the minor child of an EU citizen’s third-country spouse, where that EU citizen has never exercised freedom of movement (those spouses in turn having a Spanish child who is a minor who has also never exercised freedom of movement), solely and exclusively on the ground that the EU citizen does not satisfy the conditions laid down in that provision, without having examined specifically and individually whether there exists a relationship of dependency between that EU citizen and the third-country national of such a nature that, for any reason and in the light of the circumstances, it would mean that were the third-country national refused a right of residence, the EU citizen could not be separated from the family member dependent on him and would have to leave the territory of the European Union, infringe Article 20 TFEU in the terms set out above? And is this the case in particular where the Spanish citizen and his third-country spouse are in turn the parents of a Spanish minor who could also have to leave Spanish territory following his parents?

All of this is in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including, inter alia, [the] judgment of 8 May 2018, C-82/16, K.A. and Others v Belgische Staat. (2)

---

(1)  OJ 2012 C 326, p. 1.

(2)  EU:C:2018:308.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — GF v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

(Case C-525/19)

(2019/C 432/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: GF

Respondent: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the requirement that a Spanish citizen who has not exercised his right of free movement must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Royal Decree 240/2007, as a necessary condition for the grant of a right of residence to his third-country spouse under Article 7(2) of that Royal Decree, liable, in the event that those conditions are not satisfied, to constitute an infringement of Article 20 TFEU if, as a result of the refusal to grant that right, the Spanish citizen is compelled to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole? All of the above presupposes the requirement laid down in Article 68 of the Spanish Civil Code (Código Civil) for spouses to live together. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the requirement that a Spanish citizen who has not exercised his right of free movement must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Royal Decree 240/2007, as a necessary condition for the grant of a right of residence to his third-country spouse under Article 7(2) of that Royal Decree, liable, in the event that those conditions are not satisfied, to constitute an infringement of Article 20 TFEU if, as a result of the refusal to grant that right, the Spanish citizen is compelled to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole? All of the above presupposes the requirement laid down in Article 68 of the Spanish Civil Code (Código Civil) for spouses to live together.

| 2. | In any event, notwithstanding the foregoing, does the practice of the Spanish State of automatically applying the rule laid down in Article 7 of Royal Decree 240/2007, and refusing to grant a residence permit to a family member of an EU citizen where that EU citizen has never exercised freedom of movement, solely and exclusively on the ground that the EU citizen does not satisfy the conditions laid down in that provision, without having examined specifically and individually whether there exists a relationship of dependency between that EU citizen and the third-country national of such a nature that, for any reason and in the light of the circumstances, it would mean that were the third-country national refused a right of residence, the EU citizen could not be separated from the family member dependent on him and would have to leave the territory of the European Union, infringe Article 20 TFEU in the terms set out above? All of this is in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including, inter alia, the judgment of 8 May 2018, C-82/16, K.A. and Others v Belgische Staat. (1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

In any event, notwithstanding the foregoing, does the practice of the Spanish State of automatically applying the rule laid down in Article 7 of Royal Decree 240/2007, and refusing to grant a residence permit to a family member of an EU citizen where that EU citizen has never exercised freedom of movement, solely and exclusively on the ground that the EU citizen does not satisfy the conditions laid down in that provision, without having examined specifically and individually whether there exists a relationship of dependency between that EU citizen and the third-country national of such a nature that, for any reason and in the light of the circumstances, it would mean that were the third-country national refused a right of residence, the EU citizen could not be separated from the family member dependent on him and would have to leave the territory of the European Union, infringe Article 20 TFEU in the terms set out above? All of this is in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including, inter alia, the judgment of 8 May 2018, C-82/16, K.A. and Others v Belgische Staat. (1)

---

(1)  Judgment of 8 May 2018, K.A. and Others (Family reunification in Belgium) (C-82/16, EU:C:2018:308).

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2019 — QP v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

(Case C-532/19)

(2019/C 432/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and respondent: QP

Defendant and appellant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the requirement that a Spanish citizen who has not exercised his right of free movement must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Royal Decree 240/2007, as a necessary condition for the grant of a right of residence to his third-country spouse under Article 7(2) of that Royal Decree, liable, in the event that those conditions are not satisfied, to constitute an infringement of Article 20 TFEU if, as a result of the refusal to grant that right, the Spanish citizen is compelled to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole?
  All of the above presupposes the requirement laid down in Article 68 of the Spanish Civil Code (Código Civil) for spouses to live together. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the requirement that a Spanish citizen who has not exercised his right of free movement must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Royal Decree 240/2007, as a necessary condition for the grant of a right of residence to his third-country spouse under Article 7(2) of that Royal Decree, liable, in the event that those conditions are not satisfied, to constitute an infringement of Article 20 TFEU if, as a result of the refusal to grant that right, the Spanish citizen is compelled to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole?

All of the above presupposes the requirement laid down in Article 68 of the Spanish Civil Code (Código Civil) for spouses to live together.

| 2. | In any event, notwithstanding the foregoing, does the practice of the Spanish State of automatically applying the rule laid down in Article 7 of Royal Decree 240/2007, and refusing to grant a residence permit to a family member of an EU citizen where that EU citizen has never exercised freedom of movement, on the ground that the EU citizen does not satisfy the conditions laid down in that provision, without having examined specifically and individually whether there exists a relationship of dependency between that EU citizen and the third-country national of such a nature that, for any reason and in the light of the circumstances, it would mean that were the third-country national refused a right of residence, the EU citizen could not be separated from the family member dependent on him and would have to leave the territory of the European Union, infringe Article 20 TFEU in the terms set out above?
  All of this is in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including, inter alia, the judgment of 8 May 2018, C-82/16, K.A. and Others v Belgische Staat. (1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

In any event, notwithstanding the foregoing, does the practice of the Spanish State of automatically applying the rule laid down in Article 7 of Royal Decree 240/2007, and refusing to grant a residence permit to a family member of an EU citizen where that EU citizen has never exercised freedom of movement, on the ground that the EU citizen does not satisfy the conditions laid down in that provision, without having examined specifically and individually whether there exists a relationship of dependency between that EU citizen and the third-country national of such a nature that, for any reason and in the light of the circumstances, it would mean that were the third-country national refused a right of residence, the EU citizen could not be separated from the family member dependent on him and would have to leave the territory of the European Union, infringe Article 20 TFEU in the terms set out above?

All of this is in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including, inter alia, the judgment of 8 May 2018, C-82/16, K.A. and Others v Belgische Staat. (1)

---

(1)  Judgment of 8 May 2018, K.A. and Others (Family reunification in Belgium) (C-82/16, EU:C:2018:308).

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/17

---

Appeal brought on 29 July 2019 by Intercept Pharma Ltd, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2019 in Case T-377/18: Intercept Pharma and Intercept Pharmaceuticals v EMA

(Case C-576/19 P)

(2019/C 432/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Intercept Pharma Ltd, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (represented by: L. Tsang, J. Mulryne, E. Amos, Solicitors, F. Campbell, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the decision of the General Court delivered on 28 June 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of the General Court delivered on 28 June 2019;

| — | annul the decision communicated by the respondent to the appellants on 15 May 2018 to release the Periodic Benefit Risk Evaluation Report, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision communicated by the respondent to the appellants on 15 May 2018 to release the Periodic Benefit Risk Evaluation Report, and

| — | order the respondent to pay the appellants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter, both at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the appellants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter, both at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, that the General Court erred in concluding that the ‘protection of court proceedings’ indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) is only relevant where documents were drawn up in the context of specific court proceedings or where they contain legal positions that are the subject of such proceedings. This put an impermissible restriction and limitation onto the wording of Article 4(2) that is not contained in the Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, that the General Court erred in concluding that the ‘protection of court proceedings’ indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) is only relevant where documents were drawn up in the context of specific court proceedings or where they contain legal positions that are the subject of such proceedings. This put an impermissible restriction and limitation onto the wording of Article 4(2) that is not contained in the Regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, that the General Court erred in concluding that the ‘commercial interests’ indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 can only apply where specific elements of the document are identified as undermining the commercial interests of the relevant party, and cannot apply simply on the basis that the disclosure of a document as a whole would harm the commercial interests of its creator. This view prevented the General Court from recognising the error in law and assessment made by the respondent by refusing to consider the context of the request for disclosure in this case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, that the General Court erred in concluding that the ‘commercial interests’ indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 can only apply where specific elements of the document are identified as undermining the commercial interests of the relevant party, and cannot apply simply on the basis that the disclosure of a document as a whole would harm the commercial interests of its creator. This view prevented the General Court from recognising the error in law and assessment made by the respondent by refusing to consider the context of the request for disclosure in this case.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001, L 145, p. 43).

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/18

---

Appeal brought on 29 July 2019 by KID-Systeme GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2019 in Case T-354/18: KID-Systeme v EUIPO

(Case C-577/19 P)

(2019/C 432/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KID-Systeme GmbH (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwälte, T. Wittmann, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 10 October 2019 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that KID-Systeme GmbH shall bear its own costs.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/19

---

Appeal brought on 6 August 2019 by Rietze GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2019 in Case T-43/18, Rietze GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-599/19 P)

(2019/C 432/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Krogmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 24 October 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/19

---

Appeal brought on 7 August 2019 by BP against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-888/16: BP v FRA

(Case C-601/19 P)

(2019/C 432/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BP (represented by: E. Lazar, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested judgment and consequently |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested judgment and consequently

| — | annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts of Employment (AHCC) of 21 April 2016 not to renew her employment contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts of Employment (AHCC) of 21 April 2016 not to renew her employment contract;

| — | award compensation for material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the unlawful non-renewal decision on the one hand and the unlawful execution of the judgement in case T-658/13P, on the other hand; |
| --- | --- |

—

award compensation for material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the unlawful non-renewal decision on the one hand and the unlawful execution of the judgement in case T-658/13P, on the other hand;

| — | award compensation for material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant due to the defendant’s failure to adopt the lawful rules for appraisal, reclassification and renewal and the related harm resulted from the absence of such lawful rules; |
| --- | --- |

—

award compensation for material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant due to the defendant’s failure to adopt the lawful rules for appraisal, reclassification and renewal and the related harm resulted from the absence of such lawful rules;

| — | rule that the FRA Guidelines for appraisal and reclassification and the FRA Director decision 2009/13 regarding renewal of employment contracts are unlawful insofar as these rules were adopted following an unlawful procedure by an author lacking appropriate competence; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the FRA Guidelines for appraisal and reclassification and the FRA Director decision 2009/13 regarding renewal of employment contracts are unlawful insofar as these rules were adopted following an unlawful procedure by an author lacking appropriate competence;

| — | exercise its full jurisdiction to ensure the effectiveness of its decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

exercise its full jurisdiction to ensure the effectiveness of its decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the default interest at the key rate of the European Central Bank plus two percentage points on the amount eventually awarded or any other award of interest payment which the Court thinks just and appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the default interest at the key rate of the European Central Bank plus two percentage points on the amount eventually awarded or any other award of interest payment which the Court thinks just and appropriate;

| — | order the FRA to pay the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the FRA to pay the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: the General Court committed a manifest error in the assessment of the second plea relating to unlawfulness of the FRA rules and fourth head of claim related to the plea of illegality raised by the appellant under Article 277 TFEU. In this regard the General Court committed an incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence, distorted the clear sense of evidence, committed an error of law, violated the duty to state reasons, and breached the right to be heard.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court failed to adjudicate on the third head of claim and to exercise full jurisdiction as claimed under the fifth head of claim. In this regard the General Court infringed of the requirement to safeguard legality as envisaged in Article 19(1) TEU and breached Article 268 TFEU.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court violated Articles 35, 36, 64 and 65 of the General Court’s Rules of procedure. In this regard the General Court breached the adversarial principle; failed to serve on FRA the letter of 25 September 2017 and failed to notify the appellant about that service; breached the administration of the evidences attached to the Reply and violated the rules on evidences; wrongly rejected the OLAF Report in joined cases OF/2014/0192 and OF/2015/0167; breached the right to be heard; violated the right to a fair trial; and breached Article 52 of the EU fundamental Rights Charter.

Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court infringed the right of defence and the principle of effective judicial protection laid down in Article 47 of the EU Charter and produced an inadequate statement of reasons.

Fifth plea in law: the General Court violated of Articles 134 and 135 of its Rules of Procedure regarding the costs. In this regard the General Court failed its duty to state reasons.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/20

---

Appeal brought on 21 August 2019 by Luz Saúde, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2019 in Case T-357/18 Luz Saúde v EUIPO – Clínica La Luz

(Case C-622/19 P)

(2019/C 432/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Luz Saúde, SA (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio, P. Guerra e Andrade, G. Moreira Rato and M. Stock da Cunha, advogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Clínica La Luz

By order of 5 November 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Luz Saúde, SA, to bear its own costs.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/21

---

Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order brought on 9 September 2019 — Ntinos Ramon v European Commission

(Case C-675/19 SA)

(2019/C 432/26)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ntinos Ramon (represented by: Achilleas Demetriades and Charalampos Pogiatsis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant requests:

| Α. | an order by the Court ordering the removal of the immunity of the European Commission under Article 1 of Protocol (No 7) (1) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union and authorising the service and execution of:






  1) | the interim garnishee order nisi dated 26 June 2019 which was handed down by the Eparchiako Dikastirio Ammochostou (District Court of Famagusta) in Cyprus, |
| --- | --- | --- |

Α.

an order by the Court ordering the removal of the immunity of the European Commission under Article 1 of Protocol (No 7) (1) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union and authorising the service and execution of:

1)

the interim garnishee order nisi dated 26 June 2019 which was handed down by the Eparchiako Dikastirio Ammochostou (District Court of Famagusta) in Cyprus,

| 2) | whatever final order is made by that court, |
| --- | --- |

2)

whatever final order is made by that court,

| 3) | any other related order. |
| --- | --- |

3)

any other related order.

| Β. | whatever order and remedy the Court judges to be fair and equitable in the circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

Β.

whatever order and remedy the Court judges to be fair and equitable in the circumstances.

| C. | Costs inclusive of VAT. |
| --- | --- |

C.

Costs inclusive of VAT.

---

(1)  OJ 2016 C 202, p. 266.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea (Romania) lodged on 11 September 2019 — S.C. Valoris S.R.L. v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Craiova — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Vâlcea and Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-677/19)

(2019/C 432/27)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Vâlcea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S.C. Valoris S.R.L.

Defendants: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Craiova — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Vâlcea and Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Question referred

Are the principles of sincere cooperation, equivalence and effectiveness to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 1(2) of Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 52/2017 (Government Emergency Order No 52/2017), which has laid down a time limit of approximately 1 year for the lodging of applications for the reimbursement of certain taxes levied in breach of EU law, while domestic legislation lays down no similar time limit for the exercise of the right to reimbursement of sums levied in breach of domestic law?

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 13 September 2019 — SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA v YB

(Case C-693/19)

(2019/C 432/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA

Defendant: YB

Question referred

Under what conditions, if any, do Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a national law, such as the one referred to, which prevents the enforcement court from performing a review of the content of a judicial enforceable instrument that has become final and, where a consumer has expressed his or her desire to rely on the unfairness of a term contained in the contract in respect of which the enforceable instrument was issued, precludes the same court from overriding the effects of the implicit force of res judicata?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2019 — Axpo Trading Ag v Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

(Case C-705/19)

(2019/C 432/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Axpo Trading Ag

Respondent: Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Question referred

Do the following provisions:

| — | Article 18 TFEU, in so far as it prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality within the scope of application of the Treaties; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 18 TFEU, in so far as it prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality within the scope of application of the Treaties;

| — | Articles 28 and 30 TFEU and Article 6 of the EEC-Switzerland Free Trade Agreement, in so far as they provide for the abolition of customs duties on imports and measures having equivalent effect; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 28 and 30 TFEU and Article 6 of the EEC-Switzerland Free Trade Agreement, in so far as they provide for the abolition of customs duties on imports and measures having equivalent effect;

| — | Article 110 TFEU, in so far as it prohibits taxation on imports in excess of those imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 110 TFEU, in so far as it prohibits taxation on imports in excess of those imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products;

| — | Article 34 TFEU and Article 13 of the EEC-Switzerland Free Trade Agreement, in so far as they prohibit the adoption of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 34 TFEU and Article 13 of the EEC-Switzerland Free Trade Agreement, in so far as they prohibit the adoption of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports;

| — | Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, in so far as they prohibit the implementation of a State aid measure not notified to the Commission and incompatible with the internal market; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, in so far as they prohibit the implementation of a State aid measure not notified to the Commission and incompatible with the internal market; and

| — | Directive 2009/28/EC, (1) in so far as it seeks to promote intra-Community trade in green electricity, thus promoting, moreover, the production capacity of individual Member States, |
| --- | --- |

—

Directive 2009/28/EC, (1) in so far as it seeks to promote intra-Community trade in green electricity, thus promoting, moreover, the production capacity of individual Member States,

preclude national legislation which imposes on importers of green electricity a financial burden that does not apply to domestic producers of the same product?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2019 — Sisal SpA v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ministero dell’Economia and delle Finanze

(Case C-721/19)

(2019/C 432/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sisal SpA

Respondents: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ministero dell’Economia and delle Finanze

Questions referred

| 1. | Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in Article 20(1) of Decreto Legge (Decree-Law) No 148 of 16 October 2017 and in the subsequent implementing legislation, which provides that ‘1. Pursuant to Article 21(3) and (4) of decreto-legge 1o luglio 2009, n. 78 (Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009), converted with amendments by legge 3 agosto 2009, n. 102 (Law No 102 of 3 August 2009), the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Customs and Monopolies Agency, Italy) shall authorise the continuation of the existing concession for the collection, including by remote means, of national instant lottery receipts for the period envisaged in Article 4(1) of the concession contract, so as to guarantee additional and increased government revenue of EUR 50 million for 2017 and EUR 750 million for 2018’, in a situation in which:






  — | Article 21(1) of Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009, converted with amendments by Law No 102 of 3 August 2009, provided for the concessions in question to be granted as a rule to more than one entity selected by means of open, competitive and non-discriminatory procedures; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in Article 20(1) of Decreto Legge (Decree-Law) No 148 of 16 October 2017 and in the subsequent implementing legislation, which provides that ‘1. Pursuant to Article 21(3) and (4) of decreto-legge 1o luglio 2009, n. 78 (Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009), converted with amendments by legge 3 agosto 2009, n. 102 (Law No 102 of 3 August 2009), the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Customs and Monopolies Agency, Italy) shall authorise the continuation of the existing concession for the collection, including by remote means, of national instant lottery receipts for the period envisaged in Article 4(1) of the concession contract, so as to guarantee additional and increased government revenue of EUR 50 million for 2017 and EUR 750 million for 2018’, in a situation in which:

—

Article 21(1) of Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009, converted with amendments by Law No 102 of 3 August 2009, provided for the concessions in question to be granted as a rule to more than one entity selected by means of open, competitive and non-discriminatory procedures;

| — | Article 21(4) of the abovementioned Decree provided that the concessions referred to in paragraph 1 may be renewed no more than once; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 21(4) of the abovementioned Decree provided that the concessions referred to in paragraph 1 may be renewed no more than once;

| — | the [appellant company] did not participate in the call for tenders held in 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

the [appellant company] did not participate in the call for tenders held in 2010;

| — | the concession in question was originally with a sole concessionaire following a public invitation to tender in which a single tender was submitted; |
| --- | --- |

—

the concession in question was originally with a sole concessionaire following a public invitation to tender in which a single tender was submitted;

| — | the continuation of the existing concession would have the practical effect of continuing the concession exclusively with that sole concessionaire, rather than renewing it with several entities, without another call for tenders being held? |
| --- | --- |

—

the continuation of the existing concession would have the practical effect of continuing the concession exclusively with that sole concessionaire, rather than renewing it with several entities, without another call for tenders being held?

| 2. | Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in Article 20(1) of Decree-Law No 148 of 16 October 2017, which, under Article 21(3) and (4) of Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009, converted with amendments by Law No 102 of 3 August 2009, provides that ‘the Customs and Monopolies Agency shall authorise the continuation of the existing concession for the collection, including by remote means, of national instant lottery receipts for the period envisaged in Article 4(1) of the concession contract, so as to guarantee additional and increased government revenue of EUR 50 million for 2017 and EUR 750 million for 2018’, providing for this:






  — | by extending the sole existing concession, rather than renewing the multiple concessions provided for in Article 21(4) of Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009, converted with amendments by Law No 102 of 3 August 2009, and without issuing a new call for tenders; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in Article 20(1) of Decree-Law No 148 of 16 October 2017, which, under Article 21(3) and (4) of Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009, converted with amendments by Law No 102 of 3 August 2009, provides that ‘the Customs and Monopolies Agency shall authorise the continuation of the existing concession for the collection, including by remote means, of national instant lottery receipts for the period envisaged in Article 4(1) of the concession contract, so as to guarantee additional and increased government revenue of EUR 50 million for 2017 and EUR 750 million for 2018’, providing for this:

—

by extending the sole existing concession, rather than renewing the multiple concessions provided for in Article 21(4) of Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009, converted with amendments by Law No 102 of 3 August 2009, and without issuing a new call for tenders;

| — | prior to the expiry of the concession: Decree-Law No 148/2017 entered into force on 16 October 2017, that is to say, on the same date as the publication in the Gazzetta ufficiale della Repubblica italiana, whereas the concession would have expired on 30 September 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

prior to the expiry of the concession: Decree-Law No 148/2017 entered into force on 16 October 2017, that is to say, on the same date as the publication in the Gazzetta ufficiale della Repubblica italiana, whereas the concession would have expired on 30 September 2019;

| — | to guarantee additional and increased government revenue of EUR 50 million for 2017 and EUR 750 million for 2018, thus changing certain aspects relating to the method and date of payment of the concession fee, as well as potentially the overall amount of the payment due with regard to its onerousness, particularly with the change in payment terms, which are accelerated compared with those envisaged by the original concession, taking into account — according to the [appellant’s] submissions — the objective and well-known fact of the value of time in financial terms? |
| --- | --- |

—

to guarantee additional and increased government revenue of EUR 50 million for 2017 and EUR 750 million for 2018, thus changing certain aspects relating to the method and date of payment of the concession fee, as well as potentially the overall amount of the payment due with regard to its onerousness, particularly with the change in payment terms, which are accelerated compared with those envisaged by the original concession, taking into account — according to the [appellant’s] submissions — the objective and well-known fact of the value of time in financial terms?

| 3. | Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in the legislation implementing the aforementioned Decree, and in particular in Customs and Monopolies Agency Notice No 0133677 of 1 December 2017, which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 20(1) of Decree-Law No 148 of 16 October 2017, and on the basis of the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 4 of the concession agreement for the management of instant lotteries, which provides for the renewal of the same no more than once, changes the expiry date of the concession to 30 September 2028 — without prejudice to the provisions of Article 4 regarding the division of the concession period into two periods of five and four years respectively (therefore, once the first period of five years commencing on 1 October 2019 has expired, the continuation for the next four years until the expiry date of 30 September 2028 is contingent on a positive appraisal of the management performance by the Customs and Monopolies Agency, to be indicated by 30 March 2024) — and requires the company to arrange payment of EUR 50 million by 15 December 2017, EUR 300 million by 30 April 2018 and EUR 450 million by 31 October 2018;






  — | providing for this before the original expiry date of the concession (Customs and Monopolies Agency Notice No 0133677 was issued on 1 December 2017, whereas the concession contract would have expired on 30 September 2019); |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in the legislation implementing the aforementioned Decree, and in particular in Customs and Monopolies Agency Notice No 0133677 of 1 December 2017, which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 20(1) of Decree-Law No 148 of 16 October 2017, and on the basis of the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 4 of the concession agreement for the management of instant lotteries, which provides for the renewal of the same no more than once, changes the expiry date of the concession to 30 September 2028 — without prejudice to the provisions of Article 4 regarding the division of the concession period into two periods of five and four years respectively (therefore, once the first period of five years commencing on 1 October 2019 has expired, the continuation for the next four years until the expiry date of 30 September 2028 is contingent on a positive appraisal of the management performance by the Customs and Monopolies Agency, to be indicated by 30 March 2024) — and requires the company to arrange payment of EUR 50 million by 15 December 2017, EUR 300 million by 30 April 2018 and EUR 450 million by 31 October 2018;

—

providing for this before the original expiry date of the concession (Customs and Monopolies Agency Notice No 0133677 was issued on 1 December 2017, whereas the concession contract would have expired on 30 September 2019);

| — | thereby ensuring [...] the advance payment of EUR 800 million (EUR 50 million by 15 December 2017, EUR 300 million by 30 April 2018 and EUR 450 million by 31 October 2018) prior to that expiry date (30 September 2019); |
| --- | --- |

—

thereby ensuring [...] the advance payment of EUR 800 million (EUR 50 million by 15 December 2017, EUR 300 million by 30 April 2018 and EUR 450 million by 31 October 2018) prior to that expiry date (30 September 2019);

| — | thereby [...] potentially changing the overall amount of the payment due, with regard to its onerousness, taking into account — according to the [appellant’s] submissions — the objective and well-known fact of the value of time in financial terms? |
| --- | --- |

—

thereby [...] potentially changing the overall amount of the payment due, with regard to its onerousness, taking into account — according to the [appellant’s] submissions — the objective and well-known fact of the value of time in financial terms?

| 4. | Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding such a provision, even if the operators in the sector currently interested in entering the market [...] did not participate in the call for tenders originally held to award the concession which was due to expire and which was continued with the outgoing concessionaire on the new contractual terms described, or does [...] any restriction on access to the market [...] apply only if they actually participated in the original call for tenders? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding such a provision, even if the operators in the sector currently interested in entering the market [...] did not participate in the call for tenders originally held to award the concession which was due to expire and which was continued with the outgoing concessionaire on the new contractual terms described, or does [...] any restriction on access to the market [...] apply only if they actually participated in the original call for tenders?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1).

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2019 — Stanleybet Malta Limited Magellan, Robotec Ltd v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-722/19)

(2019/C 432/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Stanleybet Malta Limited Magellan, Robotec Ltd

Respondents: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Questions referred

| 1. | Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in Article 20(1) of Decreto Legge (Decree-Law) No 148 of 16 October 2017 and in the subsequent implementing legislation, which provides that ‘1. Pursuant to Article 21(3) and (4) of decreto-legge 1o luglio 2009, n. 78 (Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009), converted with amendments by legge 3 agosto 2009, n. 102 (Law No 102 of 3 August 2009), the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Customs and Monopolies Agency, Italy) shall authorise the continuation of the existing concession for the collection, including by remote means, of national instant lottery receipts for the period envisaged in Article 4(1) of the concession contract, so as to guarantee additional and increased government revenue of EUR 50 million for 2017 and EUR 750 million for 2018’, in a situation in which:






  — | Article 21(1) of Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009, converted with amendments by Law No 102 of 3 August 2009, provided for the concessions in question to be granted as a rule to more than one entity selected by means of open, competitive and non-discriminatory procedures; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in Article 20(1) of Decreto Legge (Decree-Law) No 148 of 16 October 2017 and in the subsequent implementing legislation, which provides that ‘1. Pursuant to Article 21(3) and (4) of decreto-legge 1o luglio 2009, n. 78 (Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009), converted with amendments by legge 3 agosto 2009, n. 102 (Law No 102 of 3 August 2009), the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Customs and Monopolies Agency, Italy) shall authorise the continuation of the existing concession for the collection, including by remote means, of national instant lottery receipts for the period envisaged in Article 4(1) of the concession contract, so as to guarantee additional and increased government revenue of EUR 50 million for 2017 and EUR 750 million for 2018’, in a situation in which:

—

Article 21(1) of Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009, converted with amendments by Law No 102 of 3 August 2009, provided for the concessions in question to be granted as a rule to more than one entity selected by means of open, competitive and non-discriminatory procedures;

| — | Article 21(4) of the abovementioned Decree provided that the concessions referred to in paragraph 1 may be renewed no more than once; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 21(4) of the abovementioned Decree provided that the concessions referred to in paragraph 1 may be renewed no more than once;

| — | the [appellant company] did not participate in the call for tenders held in 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

the [appellant company] did not participate in the call for tenders held in 2010;

| — | the concession in question was originally with a sole concessionaire following a public invitation to tender in which a single tender was submitted; |
| --- | --- |

—

the concession in question was originally with a sole concessionaire following a public invitation to tender in which a single tender was submitted;

| — | the continuation of the existing concession would have the practical effect of continuing the concession exclusively with that sole concessionaire, rather than renewing it with several entities, without another call for tenders being held? |
| --- | --- |

—

the continuation of the existing concession would have the practical effect of continuing the concession exclusively with that sole concessionaire, rather than renewing it with several entities, without another call for tenders being held?

| 2. | Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in Article 20(1) of Decree-Law No 148 of 16 October 2017, which, under Article 21(3) and (4) of Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009, converted with amendments by Law No 102 of 3 August 2009, provides that ‘the Customs and Monopolies Agency shall authorise the continuation of the existing concession for the collection, including by remote means, of national instant lottery receipts for the period envisaged in Article 4(1) of the concession contract, so as to guarantee additional and increased government revenue of EUR 50 million for 2017 and EUR 750 million for 2018’, providing for this:






  — | by extending the sole existing concession, rather than renewing the multiple concessions provided for in Article 21(4) of Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009, converted with amendments by Law No 102 of 3 August 2009 , and without issuing a new call for tenders; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in Article 20(1) of Decree-Law No 148 of 16 October 2017, which, under Article 21(3) and (4) of Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009, converted with amendments by Law No 102 of 3 August 2009, provides that ‘the Customs and Monopolies Agency shall authorise the continuation of the existing concession for the collection, including by remote means, of national instant lottery receipts for the period envisaged in Article 4(1) of the concession contract, so as to guarantee additional and increased government revenue of EUR 50 million for 2017 and EUR 750 million for 2018’, providing for this:

—

by extending the sole existing concession, rather than renewing the multiple concessions provided for in Article 21(4) of Decree-Law No 78 of 1 July 2009, converted with amendments by Law No 102 of 3 August 2009 , and without issuing a new call for tenders;

| — | prior to the expiry of the concession: Decree-Law No 148/2017 entered into force on 16 October 2017, that is to say, on the same date as the publication in the Gazzetta ufficiale della Repubblica italiana, whereas the concession would have expired on 30 September 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

prior to the expiry of the concession: Decree-Law No 148/2017 entered into force on 16 October 2017, that is to say, on the same date as the publication in the Gazzetta ufficiale della Repubblica italiana, whereas the concession would have expired on 30 September 2019;

| — | to guarantee additional and increased government revenue of EUR 50 million for 2017 and EUR 750 million for 2018, thus changing certain aspects relating to the method and date of payment of the concession fee, as well as potentially the overall amount of the payment due with regard to its onerousness, particularly with the change in payment terms, which are accelerated compared with those envisaged by the original concession, taking into account — according to the [appellant’s] submissions — the objective and well-known fact of the value of time in financial terms? |
| --- | --- |

—

to guarantee additional and increased government revenue of EUR 50 million for 2017 and EUR 750 million for 2018, thus changing certain aspects relating to the method and date of payment of the concession fee, as well as potentially the overall amount of the payment due with regard to its onerousness, particularly with the change in payment terms, which are accelerated compared with those envisaged by the original concession, taking into account — according to the [appellant’s] submissions — the objective and well-known fact of the value of time in financial terms?

| 3. | Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in the legislation implementing the aforementioned Decree, and in particular in Customs and Monopolies Agency Notice No 0133677 of 1 December 2017, which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 20(1) of Decree-Law No 148 of 16 October 2017, and on the basis of the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 4 of the concession agreement for the management of instant lotteries, which provides for the renewal of the same no more than once, changes the expiry date of the concession to 30 September 2028 — without prejudice to the provisions of Article 4 regarding the division of the concession period into two periods of five and four years respectively (therefore, once the first period of five years commencing on 1 October 2019 has expired, the continuation for the next four years until the expiry date of 30 September 2028 is contingent on a positive appraisal of the management performance by the Customs and Monopolies Agency, to be indicated by 30 March 2024) — and requires the company to arrange payment of EUR 50 million by 15 December 2017, EUR 300 million by 30 April 2018 and EUR 450 million by 31 October 2018;






  — | providing for this before the original expiry date of the concession (Customs and Monopolies Agency Notice No 0133677 was issued on 1 December 2017, whereas the concession contract would have expired on 30 September 2019); |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in the legislation implementing the aforementioned Decree, and in particular in Customs and Monopolies Agency Notice No 0133677 of 1 December 2017, which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 20(1) of Decree-Law No 148 of 16 October 2017, and on the basis of the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 4 of the concession agreement for the management of instant lotteries, which provides for the renewal of the same no more than once, changes the expiry date of the concession to 30 September 2028 — without prejudice to the provisions of Article 4 regarding the division of the concession period into two periods of five and four years respectively (therefore, once the first period of five years commencing on 1 October 2019 has expired, the continuation for the next four years until the expiry date of 30 September 2028 is contingent on a positive appraisal of the management performance by the Customs and Monopolies Agency, to be indicated by 30 March 2024) — and requires the company to arrange payment of EUR 50 million by 15 December 2017, EUR 300 million by 30 April 2018 and EUR 450 million by 31 October 2018;

—

providing for this before the original expiry date of the concession (Customs and Monopolies Agency Notice No 0133677 was issued on 1 December 2017, whereas the concession contract would have expired on 30 September 2019);

| — | thereby ensuring [...] the advance payment of EUR 800 million (EUR 50 million by 15 December 2017, EUR 300 million by 30 April 2018 and EUR 450 million by 31 October 2018) prior to that expiry date (30 September 2019); |
| --- | --- |

—

thereby ensuring [...] the advance payment of EUR 800 million (EUR 50 million by 15 December 2017, EUR 300 million by 30 April 2018 and EUR 450 million by 31 October 2018) prior to that expiry date (30 September 2019);

| — | thereby [...] potentially changing the overall amount of the payment due, with regard to its onerousness, taking into account — according to the [appellant’s] submissions — the objective and well-known fact of the value of time in financial terms? |
| --- | --- |

—

thereby [...] potentially changing the overall amount of the payment due, with regard to its onerousness, taking into account — according to the [appellant’s] submissions — the objective and well-known fact of the value of time in financial terms?

| 4. | Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding such a provision, even if the operators in the sector currently interested in entering the market [...] did not participate in the call for tenders originally held to award the concession which was due to expire and which was continued with the outgoing concessionaire on the new contractual terms described, or does [...] any restriction on access to the market [...] apply only if they actually participated in the original call for tenders? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding such a provision, even if the operators in the sector currently interested in entering the market [...] did not participate in the call for tenders originally held to award the concession which was due to expire and which was continued with the outgoing concessionaire on the new contractual terms described, or does [...] any restriction on access to the market [...] apply only if they actually participated in the original call for tenders?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1).

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 September 2019 — AIRBNB Ireland UC, Airbnb Payments UK Ltd v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-723/19)

(2019/C 432/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: AIRBNB Ireland UC, Airbnb Payments UK Ltd

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions and principles of EU law, including Articles 4, 5 et seq. of Directive 1535/2015/EU, (1) Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC (2) and Article 56 TFEU, preclude a national provision that, without prior notification of the European Commission, imposes on the operator of an online property rental platform ‘technical regulations for the provision of information society services’ consisting in disclosure requirements (the transmission to the Revenue Agency of data concerning agreements concluded on the platform) and fiscal requirements (the levying of a withholding tax on payments made in relation to agreements concluded on the platform and subsequent payment to the Treasury)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions and principles of EU law, including Articles 4, 5 et seq. of Directive 1535/2015/EU, (1) Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC (2) and Article 56 TFEU, preclude a national provision that, without prior notification of the European Commission, imposes on the operator of an online property rental platform ‘technical regulations for the provision of information society services’ consisting in disclosure requirements (the transmission to the Revenue Agency of data concerning agreements concluded on the platform) and fiscal requirements (the levying of a withholding tax on payments made in relation to agreements concluded on the platform and subsequent payment to the Treasury)?

| 2. | Do the provisions and principles of EU law, including Articles 3, 18, 32, 44, 49, 56, 101 et seq., 116, 120, 127 et seq. TFEU and Directives 2000/31/EC (3) and 2006/123/EC, (4) preclude a national provision that:






  — | introduces, for operators of an online property rental search platform, obligations for the collection and transmission of data relating to agreements; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Do the provisions and principles of EU law, including Articles 3, 18, 32, 44, 49, 56, 101 et seq., 116, 120, 127 et seq. TFEU and Directives 2000/31/EC (3) and 2006/123/EC, (4) preclude a national provision that:

—

introduces, for operators of an online property rental search platform, obligations for the collection and transmission of data relating to agreements;

| — | introduces, for those operators of online platforms that handle payments in respect of short-term rental agreements, the obligation to act as a withholding agent or agent with liability for payment of the tax; |
| --- | --- |

—

introduces, for those operators of online platforms that handle payments in respect of short-term rental agreements, the obligation to act as a withholding agent or agent with liability for payment of the tax;

| — | introduces, for operators of online platforms that are non-resident and are acknowledged as not having a permanent establishment in Italy, the obligation to appoint a tax representative; |
| --- | --- |

—

introduces, for operators of online platforms that are non-resident and are acknowledged as not having a permanent establishment in Italy, the obligation to appoint a tax representative;

| — | introduces, also with regard to non-resident persons without a permanent establishment in Italy, the obligation to act as agents with liability for payment of the tax in relation to the temporary residence levy (imposta di soggiorno)? |
| --- | --- |

—

introduces, also with regard to non-resident persons without a permanent establishment in Italy, the obligation to act as agents with liability for payment of the tax in relation to the temporary residence levy (imposta di soggiorno)?

| 3. | Do the fundamental principles of EU law preclude, in general terms, national rules that have the effect of passing on to an undertaking responsibility for the inefficiencies in the State’s assessment and collection of taxes? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do the fundamental principles of EU law preclude, in general terms, national rules that have the effect of passing on to an undertaking responsibility for the inefficiencies in the State’s assessment and collection of taxes?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ 2015 L 241, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

(3)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

(4)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 1 October 2019 — Instituto Madrileño de Investigación y Desarrollo Agrario y Alimentario v JN

(Case C-726/19)

(2019/C 432/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Instituto Madrileño de Investigación y Desarrollo Agrario y Alimentario

Respondent: JN

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the creation of a temporary contract such as a temporary replacement contract to cover a vacant post, where the duration of the contract is left to the discretion of the employer, who decides whether or not to fill the vacant post, when to do so and how long the process lasts, be considered compatible with the practical effect of Clauses 1 and 5 of Directive 1999/70? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the creation of a temporary contract such as a temporary replacement contract to cover a vacant post, where the duration of the contract is left to the discretion of the employer, who decides whether or not to fill the vacant post, when to do so and how long the process lasts, be considered compatible with the practical effect of Clauses 1 and 5 of Directive 1999/70? (1)

| 2. | Should the requirement established by Clause 5 of Council Directive 1999/70/EC to introduce one or more of the measures it stipulates in order to prevent abuse of temporary contracts be considered to have been transposed into Spanish law in the case of temporary replacement contracts to cover vacant posts, given that, according to the case-law, the law does not impose a time limit on such employment relationships, it does not specify the objective reasons that justify the renewal of such relationships, and it does not stipulate how many times those relationships may be renewed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the requirement established by Clause 5 of Council Directive 1999/70/EC to introduce one or more of the measures it stipulates in order to prevent abuse of temporary contracts be considered to have been transposed into Spanish law in the case of temporary replacement contracts to cover vacant posts, given that, according to the case-law, the law does not impose a time limit on such employment relationships, it does not specify the objective reasons that justify the renewal of such relationships, and it does not stipulate how many times those relationships may be renewed?

| 3. | Is the objective and practical effect of the Framework Agreement undermined by the fact that, according to the case-law, Spanish law does not contain any effective measure to prevent and penalise abuse in respect of workers on temporary replacement contracts to cover vacant posts, in that: there is no limit on the maximum total duration of such contracts, which never become permanent contracts or non-permanent contracts of an indefinite duration, no matter how many years elapse; workers do not receive any compensation on the termination of their employment; the public authority is not required to justify the renewal of a temporary replacement contract where, for years, the vacant post is not included in the list of public vacancies or the selection process is delayed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the objective and practical effect of the Framework Agreement undermined by the fact that, according to the case-law, Spanish law does not contain any effective measure to prevent and penalise abuse in respect of workers on temporary replacement contracts to cover vacant posts, in that: there is no limit on the maximum total duration of such contracts, which never become permanent contracts or non-permanent contracts of an indefinite duration, no matter how many years elapse; workers do not receive any compensation on the termination of their employment; the public authority is not required to justify the renewal of a temporary replacement contract where, for years, the vacant post is not included in the list of public vacancies or the selection process is delayed?

| 4. | Should an employment relationship be regarded as having satisfied the purpose of Council Directive 1999/70/EC where it is not time limited, its duration, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union 1⁄4 Case C-677/16, (2) is unusually long and is entirely at the discretion of the employer, with no limit or justification, the worker is unable to predict when the contract will come to an end, and the contract may continue until the worker retires; or should such a relationship be deemed an abuse? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Should an employment relationship be regarded as having satisfied the purpose of Council Directive 1999/70/EC where it is not time limited, its duration, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union 1⁄4 Case C-677/16, (2) is unusually long and is entirely at the discretion of the employer, with no limit or justification, the worker is unable to predict when the contract will come to an end, and the contract may continue until the worker retires; or should such a relationship be deemed an abuse?

| 5. | Under the judgment of the European Court of Justice 1⁄4 Case C-331/17, (3) can the financial crisis of 2008 be considered to be a justification, in the abstract, for the absence of any measure to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term employment relationships within the meaning of Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement, which could prevent or discourage the employment relationship between the complainant and the Community of Madrid from continuing from 2003 until 2008, at which point the relationship is renewed and subsequently continues until 2016, meaning that the replacement contract continues for 13 years? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Under the judgment of the European Court of Justice 1⁄4 Case C-331/17, (3) can the financial crisis of 2008 be considered to be a justification, in the abstract, for the absence of any measure to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term employment relationships within the meaning of Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement, which could prevent or discourage the employment relationship between the complainant and the Community of Madrid from continuing from 2003 until 2008, at which point the relationship is renewed and subsequently continues until 2016, meaning that the replacement contract continues for 13 years?

---

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

(2)  Montero Mateos, EU:C:2018:393.

(3)  Sciotto, EU:C:2018:859.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 4 October 2019 — KM v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Albacete

(Case C-731/19)

(2019/C 432/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KM

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Albacete

Question referred

Is an interpretation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 April 2015 (Case C-38/14, Zaizoune) (1) as meaning the Spanish authorities and courts can directly apply Directive 2008/115/EC (2) to the detriment of the third-country national, thereby ignoring and disapplying more advantageous national penalty provisions, aggravating that national’s liability to a penalty and possibly disregarding the principle that criminal penalties must be defined by law, compatible with the case-law of the Court of Justice on the limits on the direct effect of directives, and should the fact that the Spanish legislation is not in conformity with that directive be resolved not in that way but by legislative reform or by the remedies provided by EU law whereby a State can be required properly to transpose directives?

---

(1)  EU:C:2015:260.

(2)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/30

---

Action brought on 23 October 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-788/19)

(2019/C 432/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Gossement and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that






  — | by establishing consequences of the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights or the late submission of ‘Modelo 720’ (‘Form 720’), which include the classification of those assets as unjustified capital gains which are not subject to the statute of limitation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare that

—

by establishing consequences of the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights or the late submission of ‘Modelo 720’ (‘Form 720’), which include the classification of those assets as unjustified capital gains which are not subject to the statute of limitation;

| — | by automatically imposing a fixed penalty payment of 150 % applicable in the event of the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights or the late submission of ‘Modelo 720’; and |
| --- | --- |

—

by automatically imposing a fixed penalty payment of 150 % applicable in the event of the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights or the late submission of ‘Modelo 720’; and

| — | by applying fixed penalty payments in respect of the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights or the late submission of ‘Modelo 720’, the level of which is higher than that of the penalties laid down by the general rules on similar infringements; |
| --- | --- |

—

by applying fixed penalty payments in respect of the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights or the late submission of ‘Modelo 720’, the level of which is higher than that of the penalties laid down by the general rules on similar infringements;

| — | the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21, 45, 56 and 63 TFEU, and Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21, 45, 56 and 63 TFEU, and Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement;

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Spanish tax legislation imposes an obligation on tax residents in Spain to declare certain overseas assets and rights by means of a tax declaration form (‘Modelo 720’). Specific penalty provisions are to be applied if that obligation is not fulfilled or is fulfilled improperly.

The Commission concludes that penalties involving the classification of such assets as capital gains, the non-application of the normal rules on limitation periods and fixed penalty payments constitute a restriction of the fundamental freedoms under the TFEU and the EEA. Although in principle those measures may be appropriate for the purposes of achieving the aims pursued — which are to prevent and counter tax avoidance and tax evasion — they are disproportionate.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/31

---

Action brought on 29 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-796/19)

(2019/C 432/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Walter Mölls, Cécile Vrignon)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should,

| — | declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(a) of Directive 2007/59/EC, (1) in that it designated as the competent authority for the purposes of that directive a different authority than the safety authority referred to in Article 16 of Directive 2004/49/EC; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(a) of Directive 2007/59/EC, (1) in that it designated as the competent authority for the purposes of that directive a different authority than the safety authority referred to in Article 16 of Directive 2004/49/EC; (2)

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

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that Article 3(a) of Directive 2007/59 defines the competent authority for the purposes of that directive as ‘the safety authority referred to in Article 16 of Directive 2004/49/EC’.

However, the Austrian legislature chose a different authority.

Instead of designating the competent authority for the purposes of Directive 2004/49 (the Federal Minister for Transport, Innovation and Technology), it designated Schieneninfrastruktur-Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH as the competent authority for a set of tasks covered by Directive 2007/59. According to the Commission, that is incompatible with the latter directive.

---

(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 51).

(2)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44).

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/32

---

Appeal brought on 31 October 2019 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-105/17: HSBC Holdings plc and Others v Commission

(Case C-806/19 P)

(2019/C 432/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, M. Farley and F. van Schaik, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC France

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal (paragraphs 336-354 and the operative part) insofar as it annuls the fines in article 2 of the decision (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal (paragraphs 336-354 and the operative part) insofar as it annuls the fines in article 2 of the decision (1);

| — | dismiss the second, third and fourth branches of the sixth ground of HSBC’s application before the General Court relating to the fines, and its alternative request concerning the exercise of unlimited jurisdiction; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the second, third and fourth branches of the sixth ground of HSBC’s application before the General Court relating to the fines, and its alternative request concerning the exercise of unlimited jurisdiction;

or, in the alternative:

| — | refer the case relating to the second, third and fourth branches of the sixth ground of HSBC’s application before the General Court and its alternative request concerning the exercise of unlimited jurisdiction back to the General Court for determination; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case relating to the second, third and fourth branches of the sixth ground of HSBC’s application before the General Court and its alternative request concerning the exercise of unlimited jurisdiction back to the General Court for determination; and

| — | order HSBC to bear the entirety of the costs of these proceedings and to adjust the order on costs in the judgment under appeal in order to reflect the outcome of the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order HSBC to bear the entirety of the costs of these proceedings and to adjust the order on costs in the judgment under appeal in order to reflect the outcome of the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court committed an error of law in its finding at paragraphs 345-353 of the judgment that the Commission breached its duty under Article 296 TFEU to state reasons with respect to the discount factor for determining the basic amount of the fine imposed on HSBC and, consequently, annulling Article 2(b) of the contested decision on that basis.

The General Court applied the incorrect legal standard for assessing the adequacy of the contested decision’s reasoning with respect to the discount factor. With regard to decisions imposing fines on undertakings for the infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the Commission is not required to indicate the figures relating to the method of calculating the fines or to provide all of the figures relating to each of the intermediate steps relating to the method of calculation. When assessed against the correct legal standard, the reasoning in the contested decision satisfies the requirements under Article 296 TFEU as it sets out the Commission’s reasoning with respect to: (i) the need to apply a discount factor; (ii) the level at which that discount factor has been set; (iii) the elements that the Commission took into account to establish the level of the discount factor; (iv) why the Commission considered it appropriate to take each of those factors into account; and (v) an indication of the impact that each element had on the final level of the discount factor. In addition, the reasoning in the contested decision allowed the addressees of that decision to verify that the principle of equal treatment had been respected.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 7 December 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39914 - Euro Interest Rate Derivatives) (notified under document C(2016) 8530).

---

General Court

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 –ADDE v Parliament

(Case T-48/17) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Decision declaring certain expenditure of a political party ineligible for the purposes of a grant for 2015 - Decision awarding a grant for 2017 and making provision for pre-financing at the rate of 33 % of the maximum grant amount and an obligation to provide a bank guarantee - Obligation of impartiality - Rights of the defence - Financial Regulation - Rules of application of the Financial Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 - Proportionality - Equal treatment)

(2019/C 432/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (ADDE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially by L. Defalque and L. Ruessmann, subsequently by M. Modrikanen and finally by Y. Rimokh, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of the Parliament of 21 November 2016 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for the purposes of a grant for 2015 and, second, of Parliament Decision FINS-2017-13 of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant for 2017, in so far as that decision limits the pre-financing to 33 % of the maximum grant amount, subject to the provision of a bank guarantee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 21 November 2016 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for a grant in respect of financial year 2015; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 21 November 2016 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for a grant in respect of financial year 2015;

| 2. | Dismisses the application for annulment of Parliament Decision FINS-2017-13 of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant for the financial year 2017; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the application for annulment of Parliament Decision FINS-2017-13 of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant for the financial year 2017;

| 3. | Orders Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL and the European Parliament to bear their own costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL and the European Parliament to bear their own costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — E-Control v ACER

(Case T-332/17) (1)

(Energy - Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER - Determination of the capacity calculation regions - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissible in part - Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 - ACER’s competence)

(2019/C 432/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schuhmacher, lawyer)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: P. Martinet and E. Tremmel, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Verbund AG (Vienna) (represented by: S. Polster, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision A-001-2017 (consolidated) of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 17 March 2017 dismissing the appeals brought against Decision No 6/2016 issued by ACER regarding the determination of capacity calculation regions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision A-001-2017 (consolidated) of the Board of Appeal of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 17 March 2017 dismissing the appeals against Decision No 6/2016 issued by ACER regarding the determination of capacity calculation regions in so far as it dismisses the appeal brought by Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision A-001-2017 (consolidated) of the Board of Appeal of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 17 March 2017 dismissing the appeals against Decision No 6/2016 issued by ACER regarding the determination of capacity calculation regions in so far as it dismisses the appeal brought by Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control);

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Declares that ACER is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by E-Control; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that ACER is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by E-Control;

| 4. | Declares that E-Control is to bear three quarters of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that E-Control is to bear three quarters of its own costs;

| 5. | Declares that the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland and Verbund AG are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Declares that the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland and Verbund AG are to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Austrian Power Grid and Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz v ACER

(Case T-333/17) (1)

(Energy - Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER - Determination of the capacity calculation regions - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissible in part - Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 - ACER’s competence)

(2019/C 432/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Austrian Power Grid AG (Vienna, Austria) and Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz GmbH (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: H. Kristoferitsch and S. Huber, lawyers)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: P. Martinet and E. Tremmel, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Verbund AG (Vienna) (represented by: S. Polster, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne S.A. (Konstancin-Jeziorna, Poland) (represented by: M. Szambelańczyk, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision A-001-2017 (consolidated) of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 17 March 2017 dismissing the appeals brought against Decision No 6/2016 issued by ACER regarding the determination of capacity calculation regions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision A-001-2017 (consolidated) of the Board of Appeal of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 17 March 2017 dismissing the appeals against Decision No 6/2016 issued by ACER regarding the determination of capacity calculation regions in so far as it dismisses the appeals brought by Austrian Power Grid AG and by Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision A-001-2017 (consolidated) of the Board of Appeal of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 17 March 2017 dismissing the appeals against Decision No 6/2016 issued by ACER regarding the determination of capacity calculation regions in so far as it dismisses the appeals brought by Austrian Power Grid AG and by Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz GmbH;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Declares that ACER is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Austrian Power Grid and by Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that ACER is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Austrian Power Grid and by Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz;

| 4. | Declares that Austrian Power Grid and Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz are to bear three quarters of their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that Austrian Power Grid and Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz are to bear three quarters of their own costs;

| 5. | Declares that the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland, Verbund AG and Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne S.A. are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Declares that the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland, Verbund AG and Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne S.A. are to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Help — Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe v Commission

(Case T-335/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Food security programme for very food insecure farming households in Zimbabwe (ECHO/ZWE/BUD/2009/02002) - Reclassification of the action - Audit reports - Audit report of the Court of Auditors - OLAF Report - Reimbursement of the sums paid - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations)

(2019/C 432/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Help — Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe (Bonn, Germany) (represented initially by V. Jungkind and P. Cramer, and subsequently by V. Jungkind and F. Geber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Aresu, K. Blanck and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission decision Ares(2017)1515573 of 21 March 2017 by which a partial amount of the funding for the assistance project ECHO/ZWE/BUD/2009/02002 was to be recovered, as well as the payment request based thereupon and, second, application under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that the Commission reimburse the sum of EUR 643 627,72 paid by the applicant to the Commission, in accordance with the decision of 21 March 2017 and the payment requests of 7 April and 5 September 2017.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Help — Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Help — Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Rubik’s Brand v EUIPO — Simba Toys (Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure)

(Case T-601/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Second sentence of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2019/C 432/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rubik’s Brand Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Szamosi and M. Borbás, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2017 (Case R 452/2017-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Simba Toys and Rubik’s Brand.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rubik’s Brand Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rubik’s Brand Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Autostrada Wielkopolska v Commission

(Case T-778/17) (1)

(State aid - Toll-motorway concession - Law providing for an exemption from tolls for certain vehicles - Compensation granted to the concession holder by the Member State for loss of revenue - Shadow toll - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Commission’s obligation to exercise particular vigilance - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Improvement of the concessionaire’s expected financial situation - Criterion of the private operator in a market economy - Article 107(3)(a) TFEU - Regional State aid)

(2019/C 432/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: O. Geiss, D. Tayar and T. Siakka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, K. Herrmann and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Rzotkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2018/556 of 25 August 2017 on the State aid SA.35356 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN, ex 2012/N) implemented by Poland for Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A. (OJ 2018 L 92, p. 19).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

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

3.

Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 —Mahr v EUIPO — Especialidades Vira (Xocolat)

(Case T-58/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Xocolat - Earlier EU word mark LUXOCOLAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Reasoned statement in the notice of opposition - Rule 15(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 2(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))

(2019/C 432/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ramona Mahr (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: T. Rohracher, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Especialidades Vira, SL (Martorell, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 (Case R 541/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Especialidades Vira and Ms Mahr.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Ramona Mahr to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Ramona Mahr to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2019 — Alliance Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — AxiCorp (AXICORP ALLIANCE)

(Case T-279/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark AXICORP ALLIANCE - Earlier EU word and figurative marks ALLIANCE - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Interpretation of the description of the goods reproduced in the alphabetical list accompanying the Nice Classification)

(2019/C 432/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alliance Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Chippenham, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: AxiCorp GmbH (Friedrichsdorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2018 (Case R 1473/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Alliance Pharmaceuticals and AxiCorp.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 February 2018 (Case R 1473/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Alliance Pharmaceuticals Ltd and AxiCorp GmbH, in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought before it as regards the grounds for opposition set out in Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 February 2018 (Case R 1473/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Alliance Pharmaceuticals Ltd and AxiCorp GmbH, in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought before it as regards the grounds for opposition set out in Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Alliance Pharmaceuticals for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Alliance Pharmaceuticals for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 –EPSU and Goudriaan v Commission

(Case T-310/18) (1)

(Social policy - Dialogue between the social partners at EU level - Agreement entitled ‘General framework for informing and consulting civil servants and employees of central government administrations’ - Joint request of the signatory parties seeking the implementation of that agreement at EU level - Refusal by the Commission to submit a proposal for a decision to the Council - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Commission’s discretion - Autonomy of the social partners - Principle of subsidiarity - Proportionality)

(2019/C 432/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) (Brussels (Belgium) and Jan Goudriaan (Brussels) (represented by: R. Arthur, Solicitor, and by R. Palmer and K. Apps, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, M. van Beek and M. Kellerbauer, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 March 2018 refusing to submit to the Council of the European Union a proposal for a decision to implement the agreement entitled ‘General framework for informing and consulting civil servants and employees of central government administrations’, signed by the Trade Unions’ National and European Administration Delegation (TUNED) and European Public Administration Employers (EUPAE) on 21 December 2015.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) and Jan Goudriaan, and the European Commission to each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) and Jan Goudriaan, and the European Commission to each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2019 — APEDA v EUIPO — Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office (SIR BASMATI RICE)

(Case T-361/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark SIR BASMATI RICE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 432/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) (New Delhi, India) (represented by: N. Dontas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office SA (Athens, Greece)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2018 (Case R 90/2017-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between APEDA and Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls point 3 of the operative part of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 March 2018 (Case R 90/2017-2), in relation to invalidity proceedings between Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) and Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office SA, in so far as it upholds the dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity of EU figurative mark SIR BASMATI RICE in respect of the goods in Classes 30, 31 and 33 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, other than for ‘sago’ and ‘artificial rice [uncooked]’ in Class 30; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls point 3 of the operative part of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 March 2018 (Case R 90/2017-2), in relation to invalidity proceedings between Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) and Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office SA, in so far as it upholds the dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity of EU figurative mark SIR BASMATI RICE in respect of the goods in Classes 30, 31 and 33 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, other than for ‘sago’ and ‘artificial rice [uncooked]’ in Class 30;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — Intas Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Laboratorios Indas (INTAS)

(Case T-380/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark INTAS - Earlier EU and national figurative trade marks including the word element ‘indas’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs and of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 47 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 432/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented by: F. Traub, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Laboratorios Indas, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 April 2018 (Case R 815/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Indas and Intas Pharmaceuticals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — CdT v EUIPO

(Case T-417/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Institutional law - Obligation to award the translation services required for EUIPO’s functioning to the CdT - Termination of the arrangement between the CdT and EUIPO - Publication of a call for tenders for translation services - Plea of inadmissibility - No interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate in part - Partial inadmissibility)

(2019/C 432/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: J. Rikkert and M Garnier, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

In the first place, an application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of EUIPO’s letter of 26 April 2018, inasmuch as it gives notice of EUIPO’s intention not to extend beyond 31 December 2018 the arrangement concluded in 2016 with the CdT concerning translation services required for EUIPO’s functioning, secondly, of EUIPO’s letter of 26 April 2018, inasmuch as it informs the CdT of its intention to take the necessary precautionary steps to ensure the continuity of the translation services beyond 31 December 2018, in particular by publishing calls for tenders and, thirdly, of EUIPO’s decision to publish in the Official Journal of the European Union a call for tenders for translation services under reference 2018/S 114 — 258472; in the second place, an application for an order prohibiting EUIPO from signing contracts in connection with that call for tenders; and in the third place, an application for a declaration that the publication of a call for tenders for translation services by an agency or any other body or office of the European Union is unlawful, where a founding regulation stipulates that translation services are to be provided by the CdT.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of the decision to terminate the arrangement concluded on 13 December 2016 between the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of the decision to terminate the arrangement concluded on 13 December 2016 between the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs of the CdT, including those relating to the interim proceedings in Case T-417/18 R. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs of the CdT, including those relating to the interim proceedings in Case T-417/18 R.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2019 —Palo v Commission

(Case T-432/18) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Pensions - Pension scheme - Severance grant - Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination - Legitimate expectations - Principle of good administration - Duty of care)

(2019/C 432/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and D. Milanowska, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 October 2017 not to pay the applicant the severance grant provided for in Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in the version resulting from Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), and annulment of the Commission’s decision of 10 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Peeter Palo to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Peeter Palo to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2019 — Vans v EUIPO (ULTRARANGE)

(Case T-434/18) (1)

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

(2019/C 432/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vans, Inc. (Costa Mesa, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch and M. Metzner, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2018 (Case R 2544/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign ULTRARANGE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vans, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vans, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Biasotto v EUIPO — Oofos (OO)

(Case T-454/18) (1)

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

(2019/C 432/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Biasotto (Treviso, Italy) (represented by F. Le Divelec Lemmi, R. Castiglioni and E. Cammareri, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Oofos, Inc. (Reno, Nevada, United States) (represented by J. Klink, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2018 (Case R 1281/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Oofos and Mr Biasotto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Alessandro Biasotto to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Alessandro Biasotto to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (Happy Moreno choco)

(Case T-498/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Happy Moreno choco - Earlier national figurative marks MORENO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Substitution of the list of goods covered by the earlier national figurative marks - Rectification of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Article 102(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Legal basis - Previous decision-making practice - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations)

(2019/C 432/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZPC Flis sp.j. (Radziejowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and M. Minkner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 (Case R 1464/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Aldi Einkauf and ZPC Flis.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 31 May 2018 (Case R 1464/2017-1) in so far as it refuses registration of the mark applied for in respect of the following goods: ‘coffee substitutes; tea; cocoa; cocoa products; chocolate-based beverages, all aforementioned goods also as instant form’, with the exception of cocoa as regards the latter; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 31 May 2018 (Case R 1464/2017-1) in so far as it refuses registration of the mark applied for in respect of the following goods: ‘coffee substitutes; tea; cocoa; cocoa products; chocolate-based beverages, all aforementioned goods also as instant form’, with the exception of cocoa as regards the latter;

| 2. | Upholds the opposition in respect of all the goods and services referred to in the application for registration, with the exception of the services in Class 35 corresponding to the following description: ‘Retailing or wholesaling of cookie molds; wholesaling and retailing of cookie molds via the internet’; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Upholds the opposition in respect of all the goods and services referred to in the application for registration, with the exception of the services in Class 35 corresponding to the following description: ‘Retailing or wholesaling of cookie molds; wholesaling and retailing of cookie molds via the internet’;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)

(Case T-559/18) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a medical plaster - Disclosure of the earlier designs - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2019/C 432/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Atos Medical GmbH (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: K. Middelhoff, G. Schoenen and S. Biermann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Kramer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2018 (Case R 2215/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Atos Medical and Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Atos Medical GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Atos Medical GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)

(Case T-560/18) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a medical plaster - Disclosure of the earlier designs - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2019/C 432/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Atos Medical GmbH (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: K. Middelhoff, G. Schoenen and S. Biermann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Kramer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2018 (Case R 2216/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Atos Medical and Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Atos Medical GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Atos Medical GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — Local-e-motion v EUIPO — Volkswagen (WE)

(Case T-568/18) (1)

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

(2019/C 432/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Local-e-motion GmbH (Dorsten, Germany) (represented by: D. Sprenger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Thiering and L. Steidle, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 (Case R 128/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Volkswagen and Local-e-motion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Local-e-motion to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Local-e-motion to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2019 — Boxer Barcelona v EUIPO — X-Technology Swiss (XBOXER BARCELONA)

(Case T-582/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark XBOXER BARCELONA - Earlier EU figurative mark representing the letter ‘x’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Evidence - Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Restriction of the application for registration before the Board of Appeal - Article 49(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 432/57)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Boxer Barcelona, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: X-Technology Swiss GmbH (Wollerau, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Zafar, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 (Case R 2186/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between X-Technology Swiss and Boxer Barcelona.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Boxer Barcelona, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Boxer Barcelona, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2019 — E.I. Papadopoulos v EUIPO — Europastry (fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre)

(Case T-628/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre - Earlier EU figurative mark Caprice - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 432/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viomichania mpiskoton kai eidon diatrofis E.I. Papadopoulos SA (Moschato-Tavros, Greece) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P.V. Chardalia and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Europastry, SA (Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: L. Estropá Navarro, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2018 (Case R 493/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Viomichania mpiskoton kai eidon diatrofis E.I. Papadopoulos and Europastry.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Viomichania mpiskoton kai eidon diatrofis E.I. Papadopoulos SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Viomichania mpiskoton kai eidon diatrofis E.I. Papadopoulos SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2019 — ZV v Commission

(Case T-684/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Commission’s deputy mediator - Procedure - Assessment of the merits)

(2019/C 432/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZV (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Radu Bouyon, G. Berscheid and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 8 February 2018 appointing A as the Commission’s deputy mediator and the note of 12 February 2018 by which the Commission informed the applicant of the outcome of the selection procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ZV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ZV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FLIS Happy Moreno choco)

(Case T-708/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark FLIS Happy Moreno choco - Earlier national figurative marks MORENO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Substitution of the list of goods covered by the earlier national figurative marks - Rectification of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Article 102(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Legal basis - Previous decision-making practice - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations)

(2019/C 432/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZPC Flis sp.j. (Radziejowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and M. Minkner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2018 (Case R 2113/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Aldi Einkauf and ZPC Flis.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 September 2018 (Case R 2113/2017-1) in so far as it refuses registration of the mark applied for in respect of the following goods: ‘coffee substitutes; tea; cocoa; cocoa products; chocolate-based beverages, all aforementioned goods also as instant form’, with the exception of cocoa as regards the latter; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 September 2018 (Case R 2113/2017-1) in so far as it refuses registration of the mark applied for in respect of the following goods: ‘coffee substitutes; tea; cocoa; cocoa products; chocolate-based beverages, all aforementioned goods also as instant form’, with the exception of cocoa as regards the latter;

| 2. | Upholds the opposition in respect of all the goods and services referred to in the application for registration, with the exception of the services in Class 35 corresponding to the following description: ‘Retailing or wholesaling of cookie molds; wholesaling and retailing of cookie molds via the internet’; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Upholds the opposition in respect of all the goods and services referred to in the application for registration, with the exception of the services in Class 35 corresponding to the following description: ‘Retailing or wholesaling of cookie molds; wholesaling and retailing of cookie molds via the internet’;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/52

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2019 — United States Seafoods v EUIPO — (UNITED STATES SEAFOODS)

(Case T-10/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark UNITED STATES SEAFOODS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 432/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United States Seafoods LLC (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2018 (Case R 817/2018-5), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark UNITED STATES SEAFOODS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders United States Seafoods LLC to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders United States Seafoods LLC to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/53

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — MSI Svetovanje v EUIPO — Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria (nume)

(Case T-41/19) (1)

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

(2019/C 432/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MSI Svetovanje, marketing, d.o.o. (Vrhnika, Slovenia) (represented by: M. Maček, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 (Case R 722/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria and Nutrismart d.o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders MSI Svetovanje, marketing, d.o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders MSI Svetovanje, marketing, d.o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/54

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — A9.com v EUIPO (Representation of a bell)

(Case T-240/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a bell - Absolute ground for refusal - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 432/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: A9.com, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States) (represented by: A. Klett, C. Mikyska and R. Walther, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 (Case R 1309/2018-2), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a bell as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders A9.com, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders A9.com, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/54

---

Order of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Liaño Reig v SRB

(Case T-557/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary policy - Compensation claim - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms - Resolution procedure - Resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español - Partial annulment - Non-severability - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 432/64)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Carmen Liaño Reig (Alcobendas, Spain) (represented by: F. López Antón, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Málaga Diéguez, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch, M. Bettermann, S. Ianc and M. Rickert, lawyers)

Re:

First, an application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Article 6(1)(d) of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the SRB of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA, in so far as it makes provision for the conversion of Tier 2 capital instruments identified by the International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) XS 0550098569 into new shares in Banco Popular Español, and the provisional valuation carried out by the independent expert and the provisional valuation carried out by the SRB, and secondly, an application based on Article 266 TFEU seeking compensation, following on from the annulment, for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of that conversion.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to for leave to intervene submitted by Banco Santander SA, the Kingdom of Spain and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to for leave to intervene submitted by Banco Santander SA, the Kingdom of Spain and the European Commission.

| 3. | Ms Carmen Liaño Reig shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB), with the exception of those relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ms Carmen Liaño Reig shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB), with the exception of those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

| 4. | Ms Carmen Liaño Reig, the SRB, Banco Santander, the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission shall bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Ms Carmen Liaño Reig, the SRB, Banco Santander, the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission shall bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/55

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — ZW v EIB

(Case T-727/18 R)

(Interim measures - Civil service - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 432/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZW (represented by: T. Petsas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures to suspend or to extend certain time limits and to order the production of documents.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/56

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2019 –Briois v Parliament

(Case T-750/18) (1)

(Institutional law - Member of the European Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity - Expiry of the electoral mandate - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 432/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Steeve Briois (Hénin-Beaumont, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alonso de Léon and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision P8_TA(2018)0401 of the Parliament of 24 October 2018 to waive the applicant’s parliamentary immunity.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present case.

| 2. | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/56

---

Order of the General Court of 17 October 2019 — Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales v Commission

(Case T-145/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Grant agreement concluded under the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) - Debit note - Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable - No reclassification of the action - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2019/C 432/67)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales, SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: G. Alabau Zabal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Izquierdo Pérez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of a debit note issued by the Commission on 14 January 2019 in order to recover the sum of EUR 82 750,96 paid to the applicant in the context of financial assistance for a prototype project for the production of hydrogen using clean water, ammonia and recycled aluminium.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales, SL shall pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales, SL shall pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/57

---

Order of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-188/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Research and technological development and space - Seventh framework programme of the Union - Audit - Failure to fill out work timesheets - Personnel costs declared ineligible - Decision of the Commission to adopt the audit report as final - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 432/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, A. Kyratsou and M. Siekierzyńska, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that, in adopting as final the Final Audit Report, bearing reference number 14-BA 226-013 concerning the implementation of the Combine, EUFAR and THOR grant agreements the beneficiary of which is the Met Office, the national meteorological service attached, within the United Kingdom Government, to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Commission failed correctly to interpret and apply the contractual provisions relating to those projects.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/58

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2019 — Le Pen v Parliament

(Case T-211/19) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Decision waiving parliamentary immunity - Expiry of an MEP’s mandate - No further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 432/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by N. Görlitz and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of European Parliament Decision P8_TA(2019)0136 of 12 March 2019, waiving the applicant’s parliamentary immunity.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/58

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 October 2019 — Walker and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-383/19 R)

(Interlocutory proceedings - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 - Loss of EU citizenship - Application for interim measures - Manifest inadmissibility of the main action - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 432/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Hilary Elizabeth Walker (Cadix, Spain), Jennifer Ann Cording (Valdagno, Italy), Douglas Edward Watson (Beaumont-du-Périgord, France), Christopher David Randolph (Ballinlassa Belcarra Castlebar, Ireland), Michael Charles Strawson (Serralongue, France) (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: D. Warin and R. van de Westelaken, acting as Agents), and Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Cholakova, R. Meyer and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of the operation of Regulation (EU) 2019/592 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 2019 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, as regards the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union (JO 2019 L 103 I, p.1), and second, the adoption of certain interim measures.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/59

---

Action brought on 8 October 2019 – VeriGraft v EASME

(Case T-688/19)

(2019/C 432/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VeriGraft AB (Göteborg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Hansson and A. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find and declare that EASME’s termination of the Grant Agreement (Grant Agreement No 778620 P-TEV) is invalid; and |
| --- | --- |

—

find and declare that EASME’s termination of the Grant Agreement (Grant Agreement No 778620 P-TEV) is invalid; and

| — | order EASME to pay costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASME to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the invoked ground for termination is not applicable and EASME’s termination is thus invalid:






  — | EASME has terminated the Grant Agreement citing no other basis for its decision than a provision, according to which the Grant Agreement may be terminated if ‘the beneficiary, or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf, has been found guilty of professional misconduct, proven by any means’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the invoked ground for termination is not applicable and EASME’s termination is thus invalid:

—

EASME has terminated the Grant Agreement citing no other basis for its decision than a provision, according to which the Grant Agreement may be terminated if ‘the beneficiary, or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf, has been found guilty of professional misconduct, proven by any means’.

| — | As neither the beneficiary, i.e. VERIGRAFT, nor any natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf, has been found guilty of any professional misconduct, this ground is not applicable and the termination is thus invalid. |
| --- | --- |

—

As neither the beneficiary, i.e. VERIGRAFT, nor any natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf, has been found guilty of any professional misconduct, this ground is not applicable and the termination is thus invalid.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the termination of the Grant Agreement breaches the principle of proportionality:






  — | A termination of the Grant Agreement also breaches the principle of proportionality as it was not a suitable measure to achieve the legitimate objective pursued; it was not necessary to achieve the objective pursued; and as the termination imposed a burden on VERIGRAFT that is clearly excessive to the objective sought to be achieved. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the termination of the Grant Agreement breaches the principle of proportionality:

—

A termination of the Grant Agreement also breaches the principle of proportionality as it was not a suitable measure to achieve the legitimate objective pursued; it was not necessary to achieve the objective pursued; and as the termination imposed a burden on VERIGRAFT that is clearly excessive to the objective sought to be achieved.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/60

---

Action brought on 8 October 2019 – Daily Mail and General Trust plc and Others v Commission

(Case T-690/19)

(2019/C 432/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Daily Mail and General Trust plc (London, United Kingdom), Ralph US Holdings (London) and Daily Mail and General Holdings Ltd (London) (represented by: J. Lesar, Solicitor, and K. Beal QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 2 April 2019 on the state aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption in its entirety, in so far as it concerns the applicants or any of them; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 2 April 2019 on the state aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption in its entirety, in so far as it concerns the applicants or any of them;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly applied Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in its selection of the reference framework for the analysis of the tax regime. The Commission should have treated the reference framework as the UK’s corporation tax regime, not simply the Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) regime itself. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly applied Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in its selection of the reference framework for the analysis of the tax regime. The Commission should have treated the reference framework as the UK’s corporation tax regime, not simply the Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) regime itself.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment by adopting a flawed approach to the analysis of the CFC regime. The Commission at recitals (124) to (126) of the contested decision wrongly treated the provisions of Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 as a form of derogation from a general charge to tax found in Chapter 5 thereof. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment by adopting a flawed approach to the analysis of the CFC regime. The Commission at recitals (124) to (126) of the contested decision wrongly treated the provisions of Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 as a form of derogation from a general charge to tax found in Chapter 5 thereof.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU when finding at recitals (127) to (151) of the contested decision that the selectivity criterion was fulfilled in that undertakings in factually and legally comparable positions were treated differently. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU when finding at recitals (127) to (151) of the contested decision that the selectivity criterion was fulfilled in that undertakings in factually and legally comparable positions were treated differently.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ‘full’ exemption under section 371IB of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ‘full’ exemption under section 371IB of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the 75 % exemption under section 371ID of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the 75 % exemption under section 371ID of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of a tax burden on CFCs meeting the exemptions laid down in the said Chapter 9 as a class would breach the applicants’ freedom of establishment contrary to Article 49 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of a tax burden on CFCs meeting the exemptions laid down in the said Chapter 9 as a class would breach the applicants’ freedom of establishment contrary to Article 49 TFEU.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that there was a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in relation to the 75 % exemption and fixed ratio issue. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that there was a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in relation to the 75 % exemption and fixed ratio issue.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision fails to comply with the general EU law principle of non-discrimination or equality. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision fails to comply with the general EU law principle of non-discrimination or equality.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in applying by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164, (1) which was not applicable ratione temporis. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in applying by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164, (1) which was not applicable ratione temporis.

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU by finding at recital (176) of the contested decision that a class of beneficiaries exists (which included the applicants) and that they (the applicants) had obtained any aid which needed to be recovered under Article 2(1) of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU by finding at recital (176) of the contested decision that a class of beneficiaries exists (which included the applicants) and that they (the applicants) had obtained any aid which needed to be recovered under Article 2(1) of the contested decision.

---

(1)  Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market (OJ 2016 L 193, p. 1).

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/61

---

Action brought on 8 October 2019 – Hill & Smith Holdings and Hill & Smith Overseas v Commission

(Case T-691/19)

(2019/C 432/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hill & Smith Holdings plc (Solihull, United Kingdom) and Hill & Smith Overseas Ltd (Solihull) (represented by: J. Lesar, Solicitor, and K. Beal QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision C(2019) 2526 Final of 2 April 2019 on the state aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision C(2019) 2526 Final of 2 April 2019 on the state aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly applied Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in its selection of the reference framework for the analysis of the tax regime. The Commission should have treated the reference framework as the UK’s corporation tax regime, not simply the Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) regime itself. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly applied Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in its selection of the reference framework for the analysis of the tax regime. The Commission should have treated the reference framework as the UK’s corporation tax regime, not simply the Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) regime itself.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment by adopting a flawed approach to the analysis of the CFC regime. The Commission at recitals (124) to (126) of the contested decision wrongly treated the provisions of Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 as a form of derogation from a general charge to tax found in Chapter 5 thereof. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment by adopting a flawed approach to the analysis of the CFC regime. The Commission at recitals (124) to (126) of the contested decision wrongly treated the provisions of Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 as a form of derogation from a general charge to tax found in Chapter 5 thereof.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU when finding at recitals (127) to (151) of the contested decision that the selectivity criterion was fulfilled in that undertakings in factually and legally comparable positions were treated differently. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU when finding at recitals (127) to (151) of the contested decision that the selectivity criterion was fulfilled in that undertakings in factually and legally comparable positions were treated differently.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ‘full’ exemption under section 371IB of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ‘full’ exemption under section 371IB of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the 75 % exemption under section 371ID of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the 75 % exemption under section 371ID of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of a tax burden on CFCs meeting the exemptions laid down in the said Chapter 9 as a class would breach the applicants’ freedom of establishment contrary to Article 49 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of a tax burden on CFCs meeting the exemptions laid down in the said Chapter 9 as a class would breach the applicants’ freedom of establishment contrary to Article 49 TFEU.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that there was a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in relation to the 75 % exemption and fixed ratio issue. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that there was a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in relation to the 75 % exemption and fixed ratio issue.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision fails to comply with the general EU law principle of non-discrimination or equality. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision fails to comply with the general EU law principle of non-discrimination or equality.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in applying by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 (1) laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market, which was not applicable ratione temporis. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in applying by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 (1) laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market, which was not applicable ratione temporis.

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU by finding at recital (176) of the contested decision that a class of beneficiaries exists (which included the applicants) and that they (the applicants) had obtained any aid which needed to be recovered under Article 2(1) of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU by finding at recital (176) of the contested decision that a class of beneficiaries exists (which included the applicants) and that they (the applicants) had obtained any aid which needed to be recovered under Article 2(1) of the contested decision.

---

(1)  Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market (OJ 2016 L 193, p. 1).

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/63

---

Action brought on 8 October 2019 – Rentokil Initial and Rentokil Initial 1927 v Commission

(Case T-692/19)

(2019/C 432/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Rentokil Initial plc (Camberley, United Kingdom), Rentokil Initial 1927 plc (Camberley) (represented by: J. Lesar, Solicitor, and K. Beal, QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision C(2019) 2526 Final of 2 April 2019 on the state aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision C(2019) 2526 Final of 2 April 2019 on the state aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly applied Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in its selection of the reference framework for the analysis of the tax regime. The Commission should have treated the reference framework as the UK’s corporation tax regime, not simply the Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) regime itself. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly applied Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in its selection of the reference framework for the analysis of the tax regime. The Commission should have treated the reference framework as the UK’s corporation tax regime, not simply the Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) regime itself.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment by adopting a flawed approach to the analysis of the CFC regime. The Commission at recitals (124) to (126) of the contested decision wrongly treated the provisions of Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 as a form of derogation from a general charge to tax found in Chapter 5 thereof. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment by adopting a flawed approach to the analysis of the CFC regime. The Commission at recitals (124) to (126) of the contested decision wrongly treated the provisions of Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 as a form of derogation from a general charge to tax found in Chapter 5 thereof.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU when finding at recitals (127) to (151) of the contested decision that the selectivity criterion was fulfilled in that undertakings in factually and legally comparable positions were treated differently. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU when finding at recitals (127) to (151) of the contested decision that the selectivity criterion was fulfilled in that undertakings in factually and legally comparable positions were treated differently.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the 75 % exemption under section 371ID of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the 75 % exemption under section 371ID of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ‘matched interest’ exception under section 371IE of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system. Alternatively, the Commission’s decision in respect of the ‘matched interest’ exception is vitiated by a failure by the Commission to give adequate reasons for its decision, contrary to Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ‘matched interest’ exception under section 371IE of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system. Alternatively, the Commission’s decision in respect of the ‘matched interest’ exception is vitiated by a failure by the Commission to give adequate reasons for its decision, contrary to Article 296 TFEU.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of a tax burden on CFCs meeting the exemptions laid down in the said Chapter 9 as a class would breach the applicants’ freedom of establishment contrary to Article 49 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of a tax burden on CFCs meeting the exemptions laid down in the said Chapter 9 as a class would breach the applicants’ freedom of establishment contrary to Article 49 TFEU.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that there was a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in relation to the75% exemption and fixed ratio issue. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that there was a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in relation to the75% exemption and fixed ratio issue.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision fails to comply with the general EU law principle of non-discrimination or equality. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision fails to comply with the general EU law principle of non-discrimination or equality.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in applying by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164, (1) which was not applicable ratione temporis. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in applying by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164, (1) which was not applicable ratione temporis.

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU by finding at recital (176) of the contested decision that a class of beneficiaries exists (which included the applicants) and that they (the applicants) had obtained any aid which needed to be recovered under Article 2(1) of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU by finding at recital (176) of the contested decision that a class of beneficiaries exists (which included the applicants) and that they (the applicants) had obtained any aid which needed to be recovered under Article 2(1) of the contested decision.

---

(1)  Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market (OJ 2016 L 193, p. 1).

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/64

---

Action brought on 11 October 2019 – DD v FRA

(Case T-703/19)

(2019/C 432/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DD (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | grant the applicant compensation for the non-material prejudice suffered, as detailed in this appeal, estimated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 50 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the applicant compensation for the non-material prejudice suffered, as detailed in this appeal, estimated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 50 000;

| — | annul the decision of the Director the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) of 21 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Director the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) of 21 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | if need be, annul the decision of the FRA Director of 24 June 2019, rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

if need be, annul the decision of the FRA Director of 24 June 2019, rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | 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 nine pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the enquirers did not have a mandate to investigate a possible breach by the applicant of Article 17 or Article 11 of the Staff Regulations or to investigate the applicant’s email of 5 March 2014 and that the administrative enquiry has no legal basis. The FRA violated Article 86(2) of the Staff Regulations and Article 2(1) of Executive Board (EB) decision 2013/01. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the enquirers did not have a mandate to investigate a possible breach by the applicant of Article 17 or Article 11 of the Staff Regulations or to investigate the applicant’s email of 5 March 2014 and that the administrative enquiry has no legal basis. The FRA violated Article 86(2) of the Staff Regulations and Article 2(1) of Executive Board (EB) decision 2013/01.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the opening of the administrative enquiry was not based on a reasonable suspicion of a disciplinary offence based on prima facie evidence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the opening of the administrative enquiry was not based on a reasonable suspicion of a disciplinary offence based on prima facie evidence.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the absence of information to the applicant about the opening of the administrative enquiry and the absence of communication of the related decisions when requested by him are unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the absence of information to the applicant about the opening of the administrative enquiry and the absence of communication of the related decisions when requested by him are unlawful.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the duration of the enquiry and of the pre-disciplinary procedure was excessive and unreasonable. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the duration of the enquiry and of the pre-disciplinary procedure was excessive and unreasonable.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision closing the enquiry was not reasoned and did not comply with Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision closing the enquiry was not reasoned and did not comply with Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the enquiry report contains an error of law and a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the enquiry report contains an error of law and a manifest error of assessment.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of confidentiality. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of confidentiality.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 4(1)(a) and 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. (1) |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 4(1)(a) and 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. (1)

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging violation of the duty of care, lack of objectivity and impartiality and misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging violation of the duty of care, lack of objectivity and impartiality and misuse of powers.

---

(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).

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/65

---

Action brought on 29 October 2019 — Basaglia v Commission

(Case T-727/19)

(2019/C 432/76)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Basaglia (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Balossi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision of the European Commission of 4 September 2019 (C(2019) 6474 final) under Article 4 of the provisions implementing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the Commission’s decision refusing access to certain documents requested by the applicant concerning certain projects that were carried out with part Community funding, in respect of which proceedings are pending before the public prosecutor at the Tribunale di Milano (District Court, Milan, Italy).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, concerning unilateral restriction of the scope of the original request and insufficient grounds. The applicant claims in this regard that:






  — | in the present case there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever that could justify restricting the right of access to the documents requested and, therefore, the rights of defence of an individual in criminal proceedings in which he is a defendant in a Member State; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, concerning unilateral restriction of the scope of the original request and insufficient grounds. The applicant claims in this regard that:

—

in the present case there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever that could justify restricting the right of access to the documents requested and, therefore, the rights of defence of an individual in criminal proceedings in which he is a defendant in a Member State;

| — | the amount of work required to retrieve copies of the documents requested is not disproportionate to such an interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

the amount of work required to retrieve copies of the documents requested is not disproportionate to such an interest;

| — | the case-law cited in the contested decision is irrelevant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the case-law cited in the contested decision is irrelevant; and

| — | the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties.

| 2. | Second plea in law, concerning the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual. The applicant claims in this regard that:






  — | the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, concerning the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual. The applicant claims in this regard that:

—

the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties;

| — | the decision errs in so far as it considers that there is no overriding public interest in disclosure of the information requested; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision errs in so far as it considers that there is no overriding public interest in disclosure of the information requested; and

| — | the requests made by the applicant are proportionate to the interest protected. |
| --- | --- |

—

the requests made by the applicant are proportionate to the interest protected.

| 3. | Third plea in law, concerning protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person. The applicant claims in this regard that:






  — | the contested decision does not take into consideration the fact that the documents requested concern very old Community projects which are now complete and that, therefore, the right of protection of commercial interests has necessarily diminished; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, concerning protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person. The applicant claims in this regard that:

—

the contested decision does not take into consideration the fact that the documents requested concern very old Community projects which are now complete and that, therefore, the right of protection of commercial interests has necessarily diminished; and

| — | the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, concerning the lack of public interest.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision errs in so far as it does not consider that the reconstruction of the truth in criminal proceedings held in a Member State constitutes a clear public interest. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, concerning the lack of public interest.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision errs in so far as it does not consider that the reconstruction of the truth in criminal proceedings held in a Member State constitutes a clear public interest.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/66

---

Action brought on 29 October 2019 – Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology and Sunowe Solar v Commission

(Case T-733/19)

(2019/C 432/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology LTD (Shaoxing, Chine), Sunowe Solar GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany) (represented by: Y. Melin, lawyer, and D. Arnold, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1329 of 6 August 2019 invalidating invoices issued by Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Ltd in breach of the undertaking repealed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1329 of 6 August 2019 invalidating invoices issued by Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Ltd in breach of the undertaking repealed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570;

| — | order the Commission, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the defendant in the course of the proceedings to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the defendant in the course of the proceedings to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has acted illegally by declaring the relevant invoices invalid because the powers it relied upon to do so have either expired or been revoked, given that implementing Regulations (EU) No 1238/2013 and No 1239/2013 expired on 7 December 2015. Similarly, Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/367 and 2017/366 expired on 3 September 2018. In any case, the applicant supports that Articles 2 and 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367 and Articles 2 and 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 had already been repealed by Articles 1(4) and 3(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has acted illegally by declaring the relevant invoices invalid because the powers it relied upon to do so have either expired or been revoked, given that implementing Regulations (EU) No 1238/2013 and No 1239/2013 expired on 7 December 2015. Similarly, Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/367 and 2017/366 expired on 3 September 2018. In any case, the applicant supports that Articles 2 and 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367 and Articles 2 and 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 had already been repealed by Articles 1(4) and 3(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that, the defendant anyway breached Articles 8(1), (9) & (10) and Article 10(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, and Articles 13(1), (9) & (10) and Article 16(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, when it invalidated undertaking invoices and then directed customs to collect duties, as if no valid undertaking invoices had been issued and communicated to customs at the time the goods were declared for release in free circulation.
  The applicant therefore raises a plea of illegality against Article 3(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, Article 2(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367 of 1 March 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, and Article 2(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 of 1 March 2017 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, which give the defendant the power to declare undertaking invoices invalid and order customs to collect duties on past imports released for free circulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that, the defendant anyway breached Articles 8(1), (9) & (10) and Article 10(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, and Articles 13(1), (9) & (10) and Article 16(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, when it invalidated undertaking invoices and then directed customs to collect duties, as if no valid undertaking invoices had been issued and communicated to customs at the time the goods were declared for release in free circulation.

The applicant therefore raises a plea of illegality against Article 3(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, Article 2(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367 of 1 March 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, and Article 2(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 of 1 March 2017 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, which give the defendant the power to declare undertaking invoices invalid and order customs to collect duties on past imports released for free circulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that if the Court were to consider that the powers the defendant used have not expired and entitled the defendant to impose duties retroactively, those duties cannot be levied upon solar panels which were sold to a related party before 30 September 2014 and used in a solar farm owned by that party, or never resold to an independent customer and kept in stock. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that if the Court were to consider that the powers the defendant used have not expired and entitled the defendant to impose duties retroactively, those duties cannot be levied upon solar panels which were sold to a related party before 30 September 2014 and used in a solar farm owned by that party, or never resold to an independent customer and kept in stock.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/68

---

Action brought on 4 November 2019 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

(Case T-734/19)

(2019/C 432/78)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by: A. Van den Eynde Adroer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should find that the action against the contested act and the annexes thereto has been lodged in time, declare the action admissible and, having regard to the pleas in law relied upon, annul the contested act of the President of the European Parliament, and order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the decision of the President of the European Parliament, Mr Sassoli, of 22 August 2019, whereby he declared himself not to be competent and, therefore, rejected the petition of 4 July 2019 made to the President with a view to triggering, in accordance with Rule 8 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the urgent action procedure in order to assert Mr Junqueras i Vies’ parliamentary immunity.

In support of his action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, in that the President of the European Parliament declared himself not to be competent to deal with the petition for protection of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies, submitted on 4 July 2019, when the case raises serious legal issues regarding compliance with EU law, and especially the protection of the immunity of Members of the European Parliament. That decision was adopted without the case being dealt with and on the sole basis of the communication from the Junta Electoral Central de España (Central Electoral Commission, Spain) declaring Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies’ seat vacant.

In that connection, the applicant claims that:

| — | The oath or promise to uphold the Spanish constitution is a substantive requirement under domestic electoral law which infringes the provisions of the European Electoral Act 1976. |
| --- | --- |

—

The oath or promise to uphold the Spanish constitution is a substantive requirement under domestic electoral law which infringes the provisions of the European Electoral Act 1976.

| — | In the absence of implementation of the mechanism for substituting candidates in a given seat, the declaration as to the vacancy of the seat, made by the Junta Electoral Central de España (Central Electoral Commission) on a ground other than those laid down in the European Electoral Act 1976, infringes Article 13 of that Electoral Act and the Decision on the composition of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the absence of implementation of the mechanism for substituting candidates in a given seat, the declaration as to the vacancy of the seat, made by the Junta Electoral Central de España (Central Electoral Commission) on a ground other than those laid down in the European Electoral Act 1976, infringes Article 13 of that Electoral Act and the Decision on the composition of the European Parliament.

| — | The decision is unjustified and arbitrary, since both the Criminal Chamber of the Tribunal Supremo de España (Supreme Court, Spain) and the General Court of the European Union have identified, with regard to the facts and situation described, serious issues of EU law, and given that the reference for a preliminary ruling currently pending in Case C-502/19 has been made and declared admissible. |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision is unjustified and arbitrary, since both the Criminal Chamber of the Tribunal Supremo de España (Supreme Court, Spain) and the General Court of the European Union have identified, with regard to the facts and situation described, serious issues of EU law, and given that the reference for a preliminary ruling currently pending in Case C-502/19 has been made and declared admissible.

| — | The interpretation of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament must be in line with the maximum effectiveness of the rights and rules laid down in the Treaty on European Union, and in Article 39, Article 20(1) and (2), Article 21 and Article 52 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 3 of Protocol No 1 to the ECHR, Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, Article 5 of the European Electoral Act 1976, and Rule 3(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, as well as in the case-law and opinions which interpret the aforementioned rights and rules. The unjustified decision of the President of the European Parliament, whereby he declared himself not to be competent to deal with the petition submitted to him in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament therefore infringes those rights and rules and is null and void. |
| --- | --- |

—

The interpretation of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament must be in line with the maximum effectiveness of the rights and rules laid down in the Treaty on European Union, and in Article 39, Article 20(1) and (2), Article 21 and Article 52 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 3 of Protocol No 1 to the ECHR, Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, Article 5 of the European Electoral Act 1976, and Rule 3(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, as well as in the case-law and opinions which interpret the aforementioned rights and rules. The unjustified decision of the President of the European Parliament, whereby he declared himself not to be competent to deal with the petition submitted to him in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament therefore infringes those rights and rules and is null and void.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/69

---

Action brought on 30 October 2019 – Frank Recruitment Group Services v EUIPO – Pearson (PEARSON FRANK)

(Case T-735/19)

(2019/C 432/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Frank Recruitment Group Services Ltd (Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Dennis, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pearson plc (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PEARSON FRANK – Application for registration No 15 841 851

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 August 2019 in Case R 1884/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 47(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/70

---

Action brought on 4 November 2019 — HA v Commission

(Case T-736/19)

(2019/C 432/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HA (represented by S. Kreicher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | admit the present action as procedurally valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the present action as procedurally valid;

| — | declare it to be well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare it to be well founded;

| — | consequently, annul the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 13 August 2019, notified on 24 August 2019, in response to the applicant’s claim of 14 April 2019 (No R/249/19); |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 13 August 2019, notified on 24 August 2019, in response to the applicant’s claim of 14 April 2019 (No R/249/19);

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

—

order the European Commission to pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the legal and regulatory provisions applicable and, in particular, Commission Decision C(2007)3195 of 2 July 2007 laying down general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses, in so far as the contested decision set a ceiling for reimbursement of EUR 3 100.00 for the rental of equipment for the treatment of sleep apnoea for the period from 1 March 2019 to 29 February 2024, whereas the aforementioned Decision does not set any maximum reimbursable amount in the event of rental for a period of use that is equal to or greater than three months.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/70

---

Action brought on 5 November 2019 — Huevos Herrera Mejías v EUIPO — Montesierra (MontiSierra HUEVOS CON SABOR A CAMPO)

(Case T-737/19)

(2019/C 432/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Huevos Herrera Mejías, SL (Torre Alháquime, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Montesierra, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark MontiSierra HUEVOS CON SABOR A CAMPO — Application for registration No 51 670 871

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2019 in Case R 2021/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and any parties intervening on its behalf to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and any parties intervening on its behalf to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/71

---

Action brought on 6 November 2019 — Productos Jamaica v EUIPO — Alada 1850 (flordeJamaica)

(Case T-739/19)

(2019/C 432/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Productos Jamaica (Algezares, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alada 1850, SL (Barberá del Vallés, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark flordeJamaica — European Union trade mark No 9 003 989

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2019 in the Joined Cases R 1431/2018-1 and R 1440/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible, together with the annexes thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible, together with the annexes thereto;

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety;

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

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Although it does not make it possible to rely on a plea of limitation in consequence of the acquiescence alleged in these submissions, the evidence of use adduced by both parties in the invalidity proceedings which gave rise to the present action does constitute evidence of coexistence on the market of the marks at issue over time to which the defendant acquiesced, which constitutes due cause for the use of the contested mark, in addition to confirming the absence of any likelihood of confusion on the market. |
| --- | --- |

—

Although it does not make it possible to rely on a plea of limitation in consequence of the acquiescence alleged in these submissions, the evidence of use adduced by both parties in the invalidity proceedings which gave rise to the present action does constitute evidence of coexistence on the market of the marks at issue over time to which the defendant acquiesced, which constitutes due cause for the use of the contested mark, in addition to confirming the absence of any likelihood of confusion on the market.

| — | It cannot be concluded from the evidence adduced by the defendant that the earlier mark has acquired a high degree of distinctive character through the use that has been made of that mark in Spain. |
| --- | --- |

—

It cannot be concluded from the evidence adduced by the defendant that the earlier mark has acquired a high degree of distinctive character through the use that has been made of that mark in Spain.

| — | In the present case, there can be no finding of a likelihood of confusion in respect of all the goods and services covered by the contested mark and it cannot therefore be declared invalid in its entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the present case, there can be no finding of a likelihood of confusion in respect of all the goods and services covered by the contested mark and it cannot therefore be declared invalid in its entirety.

---

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/72

---

Order of the General Court of 23 October 2019 — Taghani v Commission

(Case T-313/19) (1)

(2019/C 432/83)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---