# Official Journal C 423/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 423 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6216 December 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 423

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6216 December 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2019/C 423/01 | 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

2019/C 423/01

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 423/02 | Case C-674/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 12(1) — System of strict protection of animal species — Annex IV — Canis lupus (wolf) — Article 16(1)(e) — Derogation allowing the taking of certain specimens in limited numbers — Hunting for population management purposes — Evaluation of the conservation status of populations of the species concerned) | 2 |
| 2019/C 423/03 | Case C-692/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 135(1)(b) and (d) — Transactions relating to the granting, negotiation and management of credit — Transactions concerning debts, with the exception of the recovery of debt — Assignment for consideration, to a third party, of a position held in enforcement proceedings for recovery of a debt recognised by a judgment) | 3 |
| 2019/C 423/04 | Case C-703/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien - Austria) – Adelheid Krah v Universität Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of persons — Article 45 TFEU — Workers — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(1) — Postdoctoral senior lecturers — Limitation on the recognition of previous professionally-relevant periods of service completed in another Member State — System of pay linking a higher rate of pay to the duration of employment with the current employer) | 4 |
| 2019/C 423/05 | Joined Cases C-4/18 and C-5/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof - Germany) – Michael Winterhoff, acting as liquidator of DIREKTexpress Holding AG v Finanzamt Ulm (C-4/18) and Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator of JUREX GmbH v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (C-5/18) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(a) — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Public postal services — Directive 97/67/EC — Universal postal service provider — Private operator providing the service of formally serving court or administrative authority documents) | 4 |
| 2019/C 423/06 | Case C-31/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Elektrorazpredelenie Yug EAD v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/72/EC — Internal market in electricity — Article 2(3) to (6) — Concepts of electricity transmission system and electricity distribution system — Distinguishing criteria — Voltage — Ownership of installations — Article 17(1)(a) — Independent transmission operator — Articles 24 and 26 — Distribution system operator — Article 32(1) — Free third-party access — Access to medium-voltage electricity — Interconnection points between transmission and distribution systems — Discretion of the Member States) | 5 |
| 2019/C 423/07 | Case C-128/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued for Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Grounds for refusal of execution — Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State — Assessment by the executing judicial authority — Criteria) | 6 |
| 2019/C 423/08 | Case C-171/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Safeway Ltd v Andrew Richard Newton, Safeway Pension Trustees Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) — Male and female workers — Equal pay — Private occupational retirement pension scheme — Normal pension age differentiated by gender — Date of adoption of measures reinstating equal treatment — Retroactive equalisation of that age to the normal pension age of the persons previously disadvantaged) | 7 |
| 2019/C 423/09 | Case C-189/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167 and 168 — Right to deduct VAT — Refusal — Fraud — Taking of evidence — Principle of respect for the rights of defence — Right to be heard — Access to the file — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Effective judicial review — Principle of equality of arms — Adversarial principle — National legislation or a national practice whereby, during an assessment of the right to deduct VAT exercised by a taxable person, the tax authority is bound by the findings of fact and legal qualifications which were made by it in the context of related administrative procedures to which that taxable person was not party) | 8 |
| 2019/C 423/10 | Case C-239/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Freistaat Thüringen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Derogation provided for in Article 14 — Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 — Article 11(1) and (2) — Requests for information — Information provided by official bodies — Request for information on the actual use of material of specific species or varieties — Content of the request) | 9 |
| 2019/C 423/11 | Case C-270/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — UPM France v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Third subparagraph of Article 21(5) — Exemption of small producers of electricity, subject to the taxation of electricity produced — Lack, during an authorised transitional period, of an internal tax on end consumption of electricity — Article 14(1)(a) — Obligation to exempt energy products and electricity used to produce electricity) | 10 |
| 2019/C 423/12 | Case C-403/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 — Alcogroup SA, Alcodis SA v European Commission, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Ethanol market — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 20(4) — Inspection decision — Conduct of the inspection — Legal professional privilege — Refusal to suspend measures of investigation — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Preparatory decision) | 10 |
| 2019/C 423/13 | Case C-423/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Südzucker AG v Hauptzollamt Karlsruhe (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 — Article 3(2) — Sugar — Surplus amount — Time limit for notifying the total levy to be paid — Time limit for a retrospective correction — Principles of proportionality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations) | 11 |
| 2019/C 423/14 | Case C-459/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Deduction for risk capital — Reduction of the amount deductible by companies with a permanent establishment in another Member State which generates exempt income under a double taxation convention — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Unfavourable treatment — No such treatment) | 12 |
| 2019/C 423/15 | Case C-490/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — SD v Agrárminiszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Apiculture sector — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1366 — Application for aid — Conditions — Minimum number of bee colonies — Fixing with retro-active effect — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations) | 13 |
| 2019/C 423/16 | Case C-514/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 – Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark v Gabriele Schmid, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 15 — Concept of genuine use — Requirement to use the mark in accordance with its essential function) | 13 |
| 2019/C 423/17 | Case C-548/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — BGL BNP Paribas SA v TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 — Law applicable to contractual obligations — Article 14 — Assignment of claims — Third-party effects) | 14 |
| 2019/C 423/18 | Case C-569/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Caseificio Cirigliana Srl, Mail Srl, Sorì Italia Srl v Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero della Salute (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Article 4(c) and Article 7(1)(e) — Quality schemes applicable to agricultural products and foodstuffs — Fair competition — PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana — Obligation to separate production areas for PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana) | 15 |
| 2019/C 423/19 | Joined Cases C-573/18 and C-574/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — C GmbH & Co. KG (C-573/18), C-eG (C-574/18) v Finanzamt Z (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable amount — Subsidy directly linked to price — Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 — Article 11(1) and Article 15 — Producer organisation having set up an operational fund — Deliveries made by the producer organisation to its members in exchange for payments not covering the entirety of the purchase price — Additional financing paid by the operational fund) | 16 |
| 2019/C 423/20 | Case C-579/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège — Belgium) — Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique v QC, Comida paralela 12. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Excise duties — Directive 2008/118/EC — Articles 8 and 38 — Person liable to pay excise duty following the unlawful introduction of goods into the territory of a Member State — Concept — Company civilly liable for acts committed by its manager) | 16 |
| 2019/C 423/21 | Case C-653/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Unitel Sp. z o.o. w Warszawie v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 146 — Exemptions on exportation — Concept of supply of goods — Article 131 — Conditions laid down by the Member States — Principle of proportionality — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Evidence — Tax evasion — Practice of a Member State consisting in refusing the right to exemption where the person acquiring the goods exported is not identified) | 17 |
| 2019/C 423/22 | Case C-489/19 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against NJ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of European arrest warrant — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of issuing judicial authority — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission) | 18 |
| 2019/C 423/23 | Case C-652/18: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Haskovo — Bulgaria) — SZ v Mitnitsa Burgas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Article 3(1) — Infringement of the obligation to declare — Article 9(1) — Penalties provided for by national law — National legislation — Fine and confiscation of the undeclared sum by the State — Proportionality) | 19 |
| 2019/C 423/24 | Case C-284/19 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 October 2019 — Andrew Clarke v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Action for annulment — Actions for failure to act — Refusal of the European Commission to bring infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU against a Member State) | 19 |
| 2019/C 423/25 | Case C-467/19 PPU: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2019 — (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against QR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Article 7(4) — Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings — Right to remain silent and right not to incriminate oneself — Agreement between the prosecutor and the offender — Approval of such an agreement by the court — Condition — Consent of the other accused persons — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Not applicable) | 20 |
| 2019/C 423/26 | Case C-673/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 11 September 2019 — M, A, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, other parties: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, T | 21 |
| 2019/C 423/27 | Case C-679/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov (Romania) lodged on 12 September 2019 – NL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București | 21 |
| 2019/C 423/28 | Case C-683/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 16 September 2019 – Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas, S.L. v Administración del Estado and Others | 22 |
| 2019/C 423/29 | Case C-691/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 18 September 2019 — Banco Santander, S.A. v VF and WD | 23 |
| 2019/C 423/30 | Case C-692/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Watford Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 19 September 2019 – B v Yodel Delivery Network Ltd | 24 |
| 2019/C 423/31 | Case C-712/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 24 September 2019 — Novo Banco S.A. v Junta de Andalucía | 25 |
| 2019/C 423/32 | Case C-716/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 26 September 2019 — ZA and Others v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos S.A. | 26 |
| 2019/C 423/33 | Case C-728/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 2 October 2019 – Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group | 27 |
| 2019/C 423/34 | Case C-729/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) made on 2 October 2019 – TKF v Department of Justice for Northern Ireland | 27 |
| 2019/C 423/35 | Case C-733/19: Action brought on 4 October 2019 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council of the European Union, European Parliament | 28 |
| 2019/C 423/36 | Case C-755/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 15 October 2019 — T.H.C. v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides | 29 |
| 2019/C 423/37 | Case C-762/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesu kolēģija (Latvia) lodged on 17 October 2019 — SIA CV-Online Latvia v SIA Melons | 30 |
| | General Court |
| 2019/C 423/38 | Case T-121/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Fortischem v Commission (State aid — Chemical industry — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — State resources — Advantage — Recovery — Economic continuity — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons) | 31 |
| 2019/C 423/39 | Case T-500/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406.4 mm, originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Injury — Price undercutting — Causal link) | 32 |
| 2019/C 423/40 | Case T-805/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – BASF v ECHA (REACH — Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Article 3(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/9 — Requirement for joint submission of data — Joint submission with possibility of a complete opt-out — Administrative practice of ECHA requiring an agreement on the terms for making a joint submission with the lead registrant for a registered substance — Failure to reach an agreement — Dispute resolution mechanism applied by analogy — Decision granting access to a joint submission — Legal basis — Broad discretion of ECHA — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Legal certainty) | 33 |
| 2019/C 423/41 | Case T-806/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – BASF and REACH & colours v ECHA (REACH — Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Article 3(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/9 — Requirement for joint submission of data — Joint submission with possibility of a complete opt-out — Administrative practice of ECHA requiring an agreement on the terms for making a joint submission with the lead registrant for a registered substance — Failure to reach an agreement — Dispute resolution mechanism applied by analogy — Decision granting access to a joint submission — Legal basis — Broad discretion of ECHA — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Legal certainty) | 33 |
| 2019/C 423/42 | Case T-112/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Pink Lady America v CPVO — WAAA (Cripps Pink) (Plant varieties — Nullity proceedings — Cripps Pink apple variety – Articles 10 and 116 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Novelty — Derogative grace period — Definition of exploitation of the variety — Commercial evaluation — Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2009 — Late submission of evidence before the Board of Appeal — Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court) | 34 |
| 2019/C 423/43 | Case T-261/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of a black square containing seven concentric blue circles) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative trade mark depicting a black square containing seven concentric blue circles — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 35 |
| 2019/C 423/44 | Case T-300/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 –Yanukovych v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection) | 36 |
| 2019/C 423/45 | Case T-301/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Yanukovych v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection) | 37 |
| 2019/C 423/46 | Case T-372/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Colombani v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2017 promotion year — Decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 14 — Article 43 and Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Consideration of comparative merits — Taking into account staff reports for the purpose of promotion — Purely literal assessments — No method enabling staff reports to be compared for the purpose of promotion) | 38 |
| 2019/C 423/47 | Case T-404/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (PDF Expert) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark PDF Expert — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 38 |
| 2019/C 423/48 | Case T-428/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 – McDreams Hotel GmbH v EUIPO – McDonald’s International Property (mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis!) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis! — Earlier EU word mark McDONALD’S — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Family of marks — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark) | 39 |
| 2019/C 423/49 | Case T-453/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Biasotto v EUIPO — Oofos (OOF) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark OOF — Earlier EU word mark OOFOS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 40 |
| 2019/C 423/50 | Case T-491/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — Vafo Praha v EUIPO — Rutzinger-Kurpas (Meatlove) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Meatlove — Earlier EU word mark carnilove — 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)) | 40 |
| 2019/C 423/51 | Case T-497/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — IAK — Forum International v EUIPO — Schwalb (IAK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark IAK — Earlier national word mark IAK — Institut für angewandte Kreativität — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark) | 41 |
| 2019/C 423/52 | Case T-500/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — Puma v EUIPO — Destilerias MG (MG PUMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark MG PUMA — Earlier EU word mark GINMG — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 42 |
| 2019/C 423/53 | Case T-533/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO – Dalian Wanda Group (WANDA FILMS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark WANDA FILMS — Earlier EU word mark WANDA — Relative ground for refusal — Restriction of the application for registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 43 |
| 2019/C 423/54 | Case T-536/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark FITNESS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court — Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal) | 43 |
| 2019/C 423/55 | Case T-542/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO – Dalian Wanda Group Co. (wanda films) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark wanda films — Earlier EU word mark WANDA — Relative ground for refusal — Restriction of the application for registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 44 |
| 2019/C 423/56 | Case T-632/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 – ZM and Others v Council (Civil service — Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Refusal to reimburse education costs — Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations) | 45 |
| 2019/C 423/57 | Case T-666/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Figurative mark ad pepper — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character) | 46 |
| 2019/C 423/58 | Case T-668/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ADPepper) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Word mark ADPepper — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) and Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character) | 46 |
| 2019/C 423/59 | Case T-686/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — LegalCareers v EUIPO (LEGALCAREERS) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark LEGALCAREERS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 7(1)(b)of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons) | 47 |
| 2019/C 423/60 | Case T-700/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Kalypso Media Group v EUIPO — Wizards of the Coast (DUNGEONS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark DUNGEONS — Earlier EU word mark DUNGEONS & DRAGONS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 48 |
| 2019/C 423/61 | Case T-730/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — DQ and Others v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Scope of the duty to provide assistance — Removal measure — Duration of the administrative procedure — Liability — Non-material damage) | 48 |
| 2019/C 423/62 | Case T-749/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Daimler v EUIPO (ROAD EFFICIENCY) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark ROAD EFFICIENCY — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 49 |
| 2019/C 423/63 | Case T-491/17: Order of the General Court of 24 September 2019 –Opere Pie d’Onigo v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme established by Italy for certain providers of socio-sanitary services — Costs associated with staff absences in respect of maternity and care provided to dependent family members — Contributions paid by the State to private undertakings — Decision not to raise any objections — No placement in an unfavourable competitive position — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility) | 50 |
| 2019/C 423/64 | Case T-605/17: Order of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — CX v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — Decision of the Commission to recover salaries paid to the applicant — Debit note ordering recovery of the sums at issue — Replacement of the contested measures in the course of the proceedings — Abandonment of any measure seeking the recovery of the sums at issue — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 51 |
| 2019/C 423/65 | Case T-677/17: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — ClientEarth v Commission (Action for annulment — Internal market — Environment — Regulation (EU) 2017/1154 — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 51 |
| 2019/C 423/66 | Case T-451/18: Order of the General Court of 25 September 2019 — Triantafyllopoulos and Others v ECB (Action for damages — Harm allegedly caused to the applicants due to the absence of supervision of the Achaiki Cooperative Bank by the National Bank of Greece and the ECB — Limitation period — Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Causal link — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law) | 52 |
| 2019/C 423/67 | Case T-599/18: Order of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Aeris Invest v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms — Resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — No ex-post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility) | 53 |
| 2019/C 423/68 | Case T-607/18: Order of the General Court of 9 October 2019 — Essity Hygiene and Health v EUIPO (Representation of a leaf) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a leaf — Absolute ground for refusal — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 54 |
| 2019/C 423/69 | Case T-663/18: Order of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — Nissin Foods Holdings v EUIPO — The GB Foods (Soba JAPANESE FRIED NOODLES) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Soba JAPANESE FRIED NOODLES — Absolute ground for invalidity — Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 54 |
| 2019/C 423/70 | Case T-713/18: Order of the General Court of 9 October 2019 — Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ESIM Chemicals — Earlier national word mark ESKIM — Relative ground for refusal — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed — Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 55 |
| 2019/C 423/71 | Case T-2/19: Order of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Algebris (UK) v Anchorage Capital Group v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms — Resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — No ex post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility) | 56 |
| 2019/C 423/72 | Case T-99/19: Order of the General Court of 25 September 2019 — Magnan v Commission (Action for failure to act, for damages and for annulment — Free movement of workers — Freedom to choose an occupation — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Alleged infringement of that agreement by Swiss laws and regulations governing the exercise of the profession of medical practitioner — Application for the adoption of measures against Switzerland and application for compensation for harm suffered — Reply of EEAS — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 57 |
| 2019/C 423/73 | Case T-102/19 and T-132/19: Order of the General Court of 7 October 2019 — Garriga Polledo and Others v Parliament (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Amendment of the additional voluntary pension scheme — Regulatory act — Implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 57 |
| 2019/C 423/74 | Case T-525/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 September 2019 — Intering and Others v Commission (Interim measures — Procedure for the award of a contract — Application for suspension of operation — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency) | 58 |
| 2019/C 423/75 | Case T-542/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 2 October 2019 — FV v Council (Interim relief — Civil service — Officials — Placing on leave and retirement in the interests of the service — Article 42c of the Staff Regulations — Application for a suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 59 |
| 2019/C 423/76 | Case T-662/19: Action brought on 27 September 2019 – BP International v Commission | 59 |
| 2019/C 423/77 | Case T-680/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 – Irish Wind Farmers' Association and Others v Commission | 62 |
| 2019/C 423/78 | Case T-689/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – ZU v EEAS | 62 |
| 2019/C 423/79 | Case T-721/19: Action brought on 18 October 2019 — Rübig v Parliament | 63 |
| 2019/C 423/80 | Case T-722/19: Action brought on 18 October 2019 — Grossetete v Parliament | 65 |
| 2019/C 423/81 | Case T-723/19: Action brought on 18 October 2019 — Díaz de Mera García Consuegra v Parliament | 66 |
| 2019/C 423/82 | Case T-724/19: Action brought on 18 October 2019 — Ayuso v Parliament | 68 |
| 2019/C 423/83 | Case T-725/19: Action brought on 18 October 2019 — de Grandes Pascual v Parliament | 70 |
| 2019/C 423/84 | Case T-729/19: Action brought on 30 October 2019 — Dinamo v EUIPO (Favorit) | 71 |
| 2019/C 423/85 | Case T-183/18: Order of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — VL and Others v Parliament | 72 |
| 2019/C 423/86 | Case T-562/18: Order of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — YP v Commission | 72 |
| 2019/C 423/87 | Case T-563/18: Order of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — YP v Commission | 73 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2019/C 423/02

Case C-674/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 12(1) — System of strict protection of animal species — Annex IV — Canis lupus (wolf) — Article 16(1)(e) — Derogation allowing the taking of certain specimens in limited numbers — Hunting for population management purposes — Evaluation of the conservation status of populations of the species concerned)

2

2019/C 423/03

Case C-692/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 135(1)(b) and (d) — Transactions relating to the granting, negotiation and management of credit — Transactions concerning debts, with the exception of the recovery of debt — Assignment for consideration, to a third party, of a position held in enforcement proceedings for recovery of a debt recognised by a judgment)

3

2019/C 423/04

Case C-703/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien - Austria) – Adelheid Krah v Universität Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of persons — Article 45 TFEU — Workers — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(1) — Postdoctoral senior lecturers — Limitation on the recognition of previous professionally-relevant periods of service completed in another Member State — System of pay linking a higher rate of pay to the duration of employment with the current employer)

4

2019/C 423/05

Joined Cases C-4/18 and C-5/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof - Germany) – Michael Winterhoff, acting as liquidator of DIREKTexpress Holding AG v Finanzamt Ulm (C-4/18) and Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator of JUREX GmbH v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (C-5/18) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(a) — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Public postal services — Directive 97/67/EC — Universal postal service provider — Private operator providing the service of formally serving court or administrative authority documents)

4

2019/C 423/06

Case C-31/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Elektrorazpredelenie Yug EAD v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/72/EC — Internal market in electricity — Article 2(3) to (6) — Concepts of electricity transmission system and electricity distribution system — Distinguishing criteria — Voltage — Ownership of installations — Article 17(1)(a) — Independent transmission operator — Articles 24 and 26 — Distribution system operator — Article 32(1) — Free third-party access — Access to medium-voltage electricity — Interconnection points between transmission and distribution systems — Discretion of the Member States)

5

2019/C 423/07

Case C-128/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued for Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Grounds for refusal of execution — Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State — Assessment by the executing judicial authority — Criteria)

6

2019/C 423/08

Case C-171/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Safeway Ltd v Andrew Richard Newton, Safeway Pension Trustees Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) — Male and female workers — Equal pay — Private occupational retirement pension scheme — Normal pension age differentiated by gender — Date of adoption of measures reinstating equal treatment — Retroactive equalisation of that age to the normal pension age of the persons previously disadvantaged)

7

2019/C 423/09

Case C-189/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167 and 168 — Right to deduct VAT — Refusal — Fraud — Taking of evidence — Principle of respect for the rights of defence — Right to be heard — Access to the file — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Effective judicial review — Principle of equality of arms — Adversarial principle — National legislation or a national practice whereby, during an assessment of the right to deduct VAT exercised by a taxable person, the tax authority is bound by the findings of fact and legal qualifications which were made by it in the context of related administrative procedures to which that taxable person was not party)

8

2019/C 423/10

Case C-239/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Freistaat Thüringen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Derogation provided for in Article 14 — Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 — Article 11(1) and (2) — Requests for information — Information provided by official bodies — Request for information on the actual use of material of specific species or varieties — Content of the request)

9

2019/C 423/11

Case C-270/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — UPM France v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Third subparagraph of Article 21(5) — Exemption of small producers of electricity, subject to the taxation of electricity produced — Lack, during an authorised transitional period, of an internal tax on end consumption of electricity — Article 14(1)(a) — Obligation to exempt energy products and electricity used to produce electricity)

10

2019/C 423/12

Case C-403/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 — Alcogroup SA, Alcodis SA v European Commission, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Ethanol market — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 20(4) — Inspection decision — Conduct of the inspection — Legal professional privilege — Refusal to suspend measures of investigation — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Preparatory decision)

10

2019/C 423/13

Case C-423/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Südzucker AG v Hauptzollamt Karlsruhe (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 — Article 3(2) — Sugar — Surplus amount — Time limit for notifying the total levy to be paid — Time limit for a retrospective correction — Principles of proportionality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)

11

2019/C 423/14

Case C-459/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Deduction for risk capital — Reduction of the amount deductible by companies with a permanent establishment in another Member State which generates exempt income under a double taxation convention — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Unfavourable treatment — No such treatment)

12

2019/C 423/15

Case C-490/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — SD v Agrárminiszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Apiculture sector — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1366 — Application for aid — Conditions — Minimum number of bee colonies — Fixing with retro-active effect — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations)

13

2019/C 423/16

Case C-514/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 – Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark v Gabriele Schmid, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 15 — Concept of genuine use — Requirement to use the mark in accordance with its essential function)

13

2019/C 423/17

Case C-548/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — BGL BNP Paribas SA v TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 — Law applicable to contractual obligations — Article 14 — Assignment of claims — Third-party effects)

14

2019/C 423/18

Case C-569/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Caseificio Cirigliana Srl, Mail Srl, Sorì Italia Srl v Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero della Salute (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Article 4(c) and Article 7(1)(e) — Quality schemes applicable to agricultural products and foodstuffs — Fair competition — PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana — Obligation to separate production areas for PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana)

15

2019/C 423/19

Joined Cases C-573/18 and C-574/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — C GmbH & Co. KG (C-573/18), C-eG (C-574/18) v Finanzamt Z (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable amount — Subsidy directly linked to price — Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 — Article 11(1) and Article 15 — Producer organisation having set up an operational fund — Deliveries made by the producer organisation to its members in exchange for payments not covering the entirety of the purchase price — Additional financing paid by the operational fund)

16

2019/C 423/20

Case C-579/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège — Belgium) — Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique v QC, Comida paralela 12. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Excise duties — Directive 2008/118/EC — Articles 8 and 38 — Person liable to pay excise duty following the unlawful introduction of goods into the territory of a Member State — Concept — Company civilly liable for acts committed by its manager)

16

2019/C 423/21

Case C-653/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Unitel Sp. z o.o. w Warszawie v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 146 — Exemptions on exportation — Concept of supply of goods — Article 131 — Conditions laid down by the Member States — Principle of proportionality — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Evidence — Tax evasion — Practice of a Member State consisting in refusing the right to exemption where the person acquiring the goods exported is not identified)

17

2019/C 423/22

Case C-489/19 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against NJ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of European arrest warrant — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of issuing judicial authority — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission)

18

2019/C 423/23

Case C-652/18: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Haskovo — Bulgaria) — SZ v Mitnitsa Burgas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Article 3(1) — Infringement of the obligation to declare — Article 9(1) — Penalties provided for by national law — National legislation — Fine and confiscation of the undeclared sum by the State — Proportionality)

19

2019/C 423/24

Case C-284/19 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 October 2019 — Andrew Clarke v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Action for annulment — Actions for failure to act — Refusal of the European Commission to bring infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU against a Member State)

19

2019/C 423/25

Case C-467/19 PPU: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2019 — (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against QR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Article 7(4) — Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings — Right to remain silent and right not to incriminate oneself — Agreement between the prosecutor and the offender — Approval of such an agreement by the court — Condition — Consent of the other accused persons — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Not applicable)

20

2019/C 423/26

Case C-673/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 11 September 2019 — M, A, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, other parties: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, T

21

2019/C 423/27

Case C-679/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov (Romania) lodged on 12 September 2019 – NL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

21

2019/C 423/28

Case C-683/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 16 September 2019 – Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas, S.L. v Administración del Estado and Others

22

2019/C 423/29

Case C-691/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 18 September 2019 — Banco Santander, S.A. v VF and WD

23

2019/C 423/30

Case C-692/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Watford Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 19 September 2019 – B v Yodel Delivery Network Ltd

24

2019/C 423/31

Case C-712/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 24 September 2019 — Novo Banco S.A. v Junta de Andalucía

25

2019/C 423/32

Case C-716/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 26 September 2019 — ZA and Others v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos S.A.

26

2019/C 423/33

Case C-728/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 2 October 2019 – Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group

27

2019/C 423/34

Case C-729/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) made on 2 October 2019 – TKF v Department of Justice for Northern Ireland

27

2019/C 423/35

Case C-733/19: Action brought on 4 October 2019 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council of the European Union, European Parliament

28

2019/C 423/36

Case C-755/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 15 October 2019 — T.H.C. v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

29

2019/C 423/37

Case C-762/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesu kolēģija (Latvia) lodged on 17 October 2019 — SIA CV-Online Latvia v SIA Melons

30

General Court

2019/C 423/38

Case T-121/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Fortischem v Commission (State aid — Chemical industry — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — State resources — Advantage — Recovery — Economic continuity — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

31

2019/C 423/39

Case T-500/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406.4 mm, originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Injury — Price undercutting — Causal link)

32

2019/C 423/40

Case T-805/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – BASF v ECHA (REACH — Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Article 3(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/9 — Requirement for joint submission of data — Joint submission with possibility of a complete opt-out — Administrative practice of ECHA requiring an agreement on the terms for making a joint submission with the lead registrant for a registered substance — Failure to reach an agreement — Dispute resolution mechanism applied by analogy — Decision granting access to a joint submission — Legal basis — Broad discretion of ECHA — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Legal certainty)

33

2019/C 423/41

Case T-806/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – BASF and REACH & colours v ECHA (REACH — Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Article 3(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/9 — Requirement for joint submission of data — Joint submission with possibility of a complete opt-out — Administrative practice of ECHA requiring an agreement on the terms for making a joint submission with the lead registrant for a registered substance — Failure to reach an agreement — Dispute resolution mechanism applied by analogy — Decision granting access to a joint submission — Legal basis — Broad discretion of ECHA — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Legal certainty)

33

2019/C 423/42

Case T-112/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Pink Lady America v CPVO — WAAA (Cripps Pink) (Plant varieties — Nullity proceedings — Cripps Pink apple variety – Articles 10 and 116 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Novelty — Derogative grace period — Definition of exploitation of the variety — Commercial evaluation — Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2009 — Late submission of evidence before the Board of Appeal — Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)

34

2019/C 423/43

Case T-261/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of a black square containing seven concentric blue circles) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative trade mark depicting a black square containing seven concentric blue circles — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

35

2019/C 423/44

Case T-300/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 –Yanukovych v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

36

2019/C 423/45

Case T-301/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Yanukovych v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

37

2019/C 423/46

Case T-372/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Colombani v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2017 promotion year — Decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 14 — Article 43 and Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Consideration of comparative merits — Taking into account staff reports for the purpose of promotion — Purely literal assessments — No method enabling staff reports to be compared for the purpose of promotion)

38

2019/C 423/47

Case T-404/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (PDF Expert) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark PDF Expert — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

38

2019/C 423/48

Case T-428/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 – McDreams Hotel GmbH v EUIPO – McDonald’s International Property (mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis!) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis! — Earlier EU word mark McDONALD’S — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Family of marks — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark)

39

2019/C 423/49

Case T-453/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Biasotto v EUIPO — Oofos (OOF) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark OOF — Earlier EU word mark OOFOS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

40

2019/C 423/50

Case T-491/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — Vafo Praha v EUIPO — Rutzinger-Kurpas (Meatlove) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Meatlove — Earlier EU word mark carnilove — 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))

40

2019/C 423/51

Case T-497/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — IAK — Forum International v EUIPO — Schwalb (IAK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark IAK — Earlier national word mark IAK — Institut für angewandte Kreativität — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark)

41

2019/C 423/52

Case T-500/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — Puma v EUIPO — Destilerias MG (MG PUMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark MG PUMA — Earlier EU word mark GINMG — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

42

2019/C 423/53

Case T-533/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO – Dalian Wanda Group (WANDA FILMS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark WANDA FILMS — Earlier EU word mark WANDA — Relative ground for refusal — Restriction of the application for registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

43

2019/C 423/54

Case T-536/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark FITNESS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court — Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal)

43

2019/C 423/55

Case T-542/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO – Dalian Wanda Group Co. (wanda films) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark wanda films — Earlier EU word mark WANDA — Relative ground for refusal — Restriction of the application for registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

44

2019/C 423/56

Case T-632/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 – ZM and Others v Council (Civil service — Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Refusal to reimburse education costs — Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

45

2019/C 423/57

Case T-666/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Figurative mark ad pepper — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

46

2019/C 423/58

Case T-668/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ADPepper) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Word mark ADPepper — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) and Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

46

2019/C 423/59

Case T-686/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — LegalCareers v EUIPO (LEGALCAREERS) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark LEGALCAREERS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 7(1)(b)of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons)

47

2019/C 423/60

Case T-700/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Kalypso Media Group v EUIPO — Wizards of the Coast (DUNGEONS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark DUNGEONS — Earlier EU word mark DUNGEONS & DRAGONS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

48

2019/C 423/61

Case T-730/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — DQ and Others v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Scope of the duty to provide assistance — Removal measure — Duration of the administrative procedure — Liability — Non-material damage)

48

2019/C 423/62

Case T-749/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Daimler v EUIPO (ROAD EFFICIENCY) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark ROAD EFFICIENCY — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

49

2019/C 423/63

Case T-491/17: Order of the General Court of 24 September 2019 –Opere Pie d’Onigo v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme established by Italy for certain providers of socio-sanitary services — Costs associated with staff absences in respect of maternity and care provided to dependent family members — Contributions paid by the State to private undertakings — Decision not to raise any objections — No placement in an unfavourable competitive position — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

50

2019/C 423/64

Case T-605/17: Order of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — CX v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — Decision of the Commission to recover salaries paid to the applicant — Debit note ordering recovery of the sums at issue — Replacement of the contested measures in the course of the proceedings — Abandonment of any measure seeking the recovery of the sums at issue — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

51

2019/C 423/65

Case T-677/17: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — ClientEarth v Commission (Action for annulment — Internal market — Environment — Regulation (EU) 2017/1154 — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

51

2019/C 423/66

Case T-451/18: Order of the General Court of 25 September 2019 — Triantafyllopoulos and Others v ECB (Action for damages — Harm allegedly caused to the applicants due to the absence of supervision of the Achaiki Cooperative Bank by the National Bank of Greece and the ECB — Limitation period — Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Causal link — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

52

2019/C 423/67

Case T-599/18: Order of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Aeris Invest v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms — Resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — No ex-post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

53

2019/C 423/68

Case T-607/18: Order of the General Court of 9 October 2019 — Essity Hygiene and Health v EUIPO (Representation of a leaf) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a leaf — Absolute ground for refusal — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

54

2019/C 423/69

Case T-663/18: Order of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — Nissin Foods Holdings v EUIPO — The GB Foods (Soba JAPANESE FRIED NOODLES) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Soba JAPANESE FRIED NOODLES — Absolute ground for invalidity — Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

54

2019/C 423/70

Case T-713/18: Order of the General Court of 9 October 2019 — Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ESIM Chemicals — Earlier national word mark ESKIM — Relative ground for refusal — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed — Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

55

2019/C 423/71

Case T-2/19: Order of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Algebris (UK) v Anchorage Capital Group v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms — Resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — No ex post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

56

2019/C 423/72

Case T-99/19: Order of the General Court of 25 September 2019 — Magnan v Commission (Action for failure to act, for damages and for annulment — Free movement of workers — Freedom to choose an occupation — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Alleged infringement of that agreement by Swiss laws and regulations governing the exercise of the profession of medical practitioner — Application for the adoption of measures against Switzerland and application for compensation for harm suffered — Reply of EEAS — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

57

2019/C 423/73

Case T-102/19 and T-132/19: Order of the General Court of 7 October 2019 — Garriga Polledo and Others v Parliament (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Amendment of the additional voluntary pension scheme — Regulatory act — Implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

57

2019/C 423/74

Case T-525/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 September 2019 — Intering and Others v Commission (Interim measures — Procedure for the award of a contract — Application for suspension of operation — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)

58

2019/C 423/75

Case T-542/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 2 October 2019 — FV v Council (Interim relief — Civil service — Officials — Placing on leave and retirement in the interests of the service — Article 42c of the Staff Regulations — Application for a suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

59

2019/C 423/76

Case T-662/19: Action brought on 27 September 2019 – BP International v Commission

59

2019/C 423/77

Case T-680/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 – Irish Wind Farmers' Association and Others v Commission

62

2019/C 423/78

Case T-689/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – ZU v EEAS

62

2019/C 423/79

Case T-721/19: Action brought on 18 October 2019 — Rübig v Parliament

63

2019/C 423/80

Case T-722/19: Action brought on 18 October 2019 — Grossetete v Parliament

65

2019/C 423/81

Case T-723/19: Action brought on 18 October 2019 — Díaz de Mera García Consuegra v Parliament

66

2019/C 423/82

Case T-724/19: Action brought on 18 October 2019 — Ayuso v Parliament

68

2019/C 423/83

Case T-725/19: Action brought on 18 October 2019 — de Grandes Pascual v Parliament

70

2019/C 423/84

Case T-729/19: Action brought on 30 October 2019 — Dinamo v EUIPO (Favorit)

71

2019/C 423/85

Case T-183/18: Order of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — VL and Others v Parliament

72

2019/C 423/86

Case T-562/18: Order of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — YP v Commission

72

2019/C 423/87

Case T-563/18: Order of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — YP v Commission

73

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2019/C 423/88 | Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-642/19 ( OJ C 383, 11.11.2019 ) | 74 |

Corrigenda

2019/C 423/88

Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-642/19 ( OJ C 383, 11.11.2019 )

74

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/1

---

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

(2019/C 423/01)

Last publication

OJ C 413, 9.12.2019

Past publications

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

OJ C 357, 21.10.2019

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry

(Case C-674/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 12(1) - System of strict protection of animal species - Annex IV - Canis lupus (wolf) - Article 16(1)(e) - Derogation allowing the taking of certain specimens in limited numbers - Hunting for population management purposes - Evaluation of the conservation status of populations of the species concerned)

(2019/C 423/02)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry

Other interested parties: Risto Mustonen, Kai Ruhanen, Suomen riistakeskus

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1)(e) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as precluding the adoption of decisions granting derogations from the prohibition on the deliberate killing of wolves laid down in Article 12(1)(a), read in conjunction with Annex IV(a) to that directive, by way of hunting for population management purposes, the objective of which is to combat poaching, where:

| — | the objective pursued by such derogations is not stated in a clear and precise manner and where, in the light of rigorous scientific data, the national authority is unable to establish that the derogations are appropriate with a view to achieving that objective, |
| --- | --- |

—

the objective pursued by such derogations is not stated in a clear and precise manner and where, in the light of rigorous scientific data, the national authority is unable to establish that the derogations are appropriate with a view to achieving that objective,

| — | it is not duly established that their objective cannot be attained by means of a satisfactory alternative, the mere existence of an illegal activity or difficulties associated with its monitoring not constituting sufficient evidence in that regard, |
| --- | --- |

—

it is not duly established that their objective cannot be attained by means of a satisfactory alternative, the mere existence of an illegal activity or difficulties associated with its monitoring not constituting sufficient evidence in that regard,

| — | it is not guaranteed that the derogations will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, |
| --- | --- |

—

it is not guaranteed that the derogations will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range,

| — | the derogations have not been subject to an assessment of the conservation status of the populations of the species concerned and of the impact that the envisaged derogation may have on it, at the level of the territory of that Member State or, where applicable, at the level of the biogeographical region in question where the borders of that Member State straddle several biogeographical regions or where the natural range of the species so requires and, to the extent possible, at cross-border level, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the derogations have not been subject to an assessment of the conservation status of the populations of the species concerned and of the impact that the envisaged derogation may have on it, at the level of the territory of that Member State or, where applicable, at the level of the biogeographical region in question where the borders of that Member State straddle several biogeographical regions or where the natural range of the species so requires and, to the extent possible, at cross-border level, and

| — | not all conditions are satisfied in relation to the taking, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, under strictly supervised conditions, in limited and specified numbers, of specimens of the species listed in Annex IV to that directive, compliance with which must be established in particular by reference to the population level, its conservation status and its biological characteristics, are satisfied.
  It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

not all conditions are satisfied in relation to the taking, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, under strictly supervised conditions, in limited and specified numbers, of specimens of the species listed in Annex IV to that directive, compliance with which must be established in particular by reference to the population level, its conservation status and its biological characteristics, are satisfied.

It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-692/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(b) and (d) - Transactions relating to the granting, negotiation and management of credit - Transactions concerning debts, with the exception of the recovery of debt - Assignment for consideration, to a third party, of a position held in enforcement proceedings for recovery of a debt recognised by a judgment)

(2019/C 423/03)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption laid down by it in respect of transactions concerning the granting, negotiation or management of credit does not apply to a transaction which, for the taxable person, consists in assigning, to a third party, for consideration all the rights and obligations deriving from the taxable person’s position in enforcement proceedings for recovery of a debt recognised by a judgment, a debt the payment of which was secured by a right over immovable property awarded to that taxable person and made the subject of attachment.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien - Austria) – Adelheid Krah v Universität Wien

(Case C-703/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of persons - Article 45 TFEU - Workers - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(1) - Postdoctoral senior lecturers - Limitation on the recognition of previous professionally-relevant periods of service completed in another Member State - System of pay linking a higher rate of pay to the duration of employment with the current employer)

(2019/C 423/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Adelheid Krah

Defendant: Universität Wien

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of a university of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of a worker’s salary grading as postdoctoral senior lecturer with that university, take into account only a maximum of four years of previous periods of service completed by that worker in another Member State, if that service was equivalent or indeed identical to that required of the worker in the performance of those duties of postdoctoral senior lecturer.

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as not precluding such rules if the service previously completed in another Member State was not equivalent, but merely beneficial to the performance of those duties of postdoctoral senior lecturer.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 9.4.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof - Germany) – Michael Winterhoff, acting as liquidator of DIREKTexpress Holding AG v Finanzamt Ulm (C-4/18) and Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator of JUREX GmbH v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (C-5/18)

(Joined Cases C-4/18 and C-5/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(a) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Public postal services - Directive 97/67/EC - Universal postal service provider - Private operator providing the service of formally serving court or administrative authority documents)

(2019/C 423/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Michael Winterhoff, acting as liquidator of DIREKTexpress Holding AG (C-4/18) and Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator of JUREX GmbH (C-5/18)

Defendants: Finanzamt Ulm (C-4/18), Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (C-5/18)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(13) and Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 must be interpreted as meaning that providers of services consisting in the service of items of correspondence, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, who, in their capacity as holders of a national licence permitting them to supply that service are required to effect, in accordance with provisions of national law, the formal service of court or administrative authority documents, must be regarded as ‘universal service providers’, in accordance with those provisions, so that those services must be exempt from value added tax as services effected by the ‘public postal services’ under Article 132 (1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Elektrorazpredelenie Yug’ EAD v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR)

(Case C-31/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/72/EC - Internal market in electricity - Article 2(3) to (6) - Concepts of electricity transmission system and electricity distribution system - Distinguishing criteria - Voltage - Ownership of installations - Article 17(1)(a) - Independent transmission operator - Articles 24 and 26 - Distribution system operator - Article 32(1) - Free third-party access - Access to medium-voltage electricity - Interconnection points between transmission and distribution systems - Discretion of the Member States)

(2019/C 423/06)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Elektrorazpredelenie Yug’ EAD

Defendant: Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR)

Other party:‘BMF Port Burgas’ EAD

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(3) and (5) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as:






  — | not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the transformation of the voltage to enable the transition from high to medium voltage falls within the remit of the activities of an electricity transmission system; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(3) and (5) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as:

—

not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the transformation of the voltage to enable the transition from high to medium voltage falls within the remit of the activities of an electricity transmission system;

| — | precluding, by contrast, such a legislation which defines the concepts of electricity transmission system and electricity distribution system based on criteria relating not only to the voltage but also to the ownership of the assets used to exercise transmission and distribution activities, respectively.
  That interpretation is without prejudice, however, first, to the application of Article 17(1)(a) of the directive, according to which the transmission system must be owned by an independent transmission operator and, secondly, to the Member States’ right to require that the distribution system operator own that system, in so far as that requirement does not jeopardise the achievement of the objectives sought by the directive, in particular by making such a system fall outside the scope of the obligation to comply with the rules applicable to it under the directive — which is a matter for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

—

precluding, by contrast, such a legislation which defines the concepts of electricity transmission system and electricity distribution system based on criteria relating not only to the voltage but also to the ownership of the assets used to exercise transmission and distribution activities, respectively.

That interpretation is without prejudice, however, first, to the application of Article 17(1)(a) of the directive, according to which the transmission system must be owned by an independent transmission operator and, secondly, to the Member States’ right to require that the distribution system operator own that system, in so far as that requirement does not jeopardise the achievement of the objectives sought by the directive, in particular by making such a system fall outside the scope of the obligation to comply with the rules applicable to it under the directive — which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

| 2. | Directive 2009/72, in particular Article 2(3) to (6) and Article 32(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a user connected to the electricity network at a medium-voltage plant must not necessarily be considered to be a customer of the electricity distribution system operator holding an exclusive licence for electricity distribution for the area concerned, irrespective of the contractual relations between that user and the electricity transmission system operator, since such a user may be considered to be a customer of the electricity transmission system when it is connected to a medium-voltage plant forming part of an electrical substation whose activity of transforming the voltage to enable the transition from high to medium voltage falls within the remit of the activities of that system — which is a matter for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 2009/72, in particular Article 2(3) to (6) and Article 32(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a user connected to the electricity network at a medium-voltage plant must not necessarily be considered to be a customer of the electricity distribution system operator holding an exclusive licence for electricity distribution for the area concerned, irrespective of the contractual relations between that user and the electricity transmission system operator, since such a user may be considered to be a customer of the electricity transmission system when it is connected to a medium-voltage plant forming part of an electrical substation whose activity of transforming the voltage to enable the transition from high to medium voltage falls within the remit of the activities of that system — which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued for Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu

(Case C-128/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Grounds for refusal of execution - Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment - Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State - Assessment by the executing judicial authority - Criteria)

(2019/C 423/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Party to the main proceedings

Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, read in conjunction with Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that when the executing judicial authority has objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information showing there to be systemic or generalised deficiencies in the conditions of detention in the prisons of the issuing Member State, it must, for the purpose of assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, following the surrender to the issuing Member State of the person subject to a European arrest warrant, that person will run a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, take account of all the relevant physical aspects of the conditions of detention in the prison in which it is actually intended that that person will be detained, such as the personal space available to each detainee in a cell in that prison, sanitary conditions and the extent of the detainee’s freedom of movement within the prison. That assessment is not limited to the review of obvious inadequacies. For the purposes of that assessment, the executing judicial authority must request from the issuing judicial authority the information that it deems necessary and must rely, in principle, on the assurances given by the issuing judicial authority, in the absence of any specific indications that the conditions of detention infringe Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

As regards, in particular, the personal space available to each detainee, the executing judicial authority must, in the absence, currently, of minimum standards in that respect under EU law, take account of the minimum requirements under Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. Although, in calculating that available space, the area occupied by sanitary facilities should not be taken into account, the calculation should include space occupied by furniture. Detainees must, however, still have the possibility of moving around normally within the cell.

The executing judicial authority cannot rule out the existence of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment merely because the person concerned has, in the issuing Member State, a legal remedy enabling that person to challenge the conditions of his detention or because there are, in the issuing Member State, legislative or structural measures that are intended to reinforce the monitoring of detention conditions.

A finding, by the executing judicial authority, that there are substantial grounds for believing that, following the surrender of the person concerned to the issuing Member State, that person will run such a risk, because of the conditions of detention prevailing in the prison in which it is actually intended that he will be detained, cannot be weighed, for the purposes of deciding on that surrender, against considerations relating to the efficacy of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and to the principles of mutual trust and recognition.

---

(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Safeway Ltd v Andrew Richard Newton, Safeway Pension Trustees Ltd

(Case C-171/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) - Male and female workers - Equal pay - Private occupational retirement pension scheme - Normal pension age differentiated by gender - Date of adoption of measures reinstating equal treatment - Retroactive equalisation of that age to the normal pension age of the persons previously disadvantaged)

(2019/C 423/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Safeway Ltd

Defendants: Andrew Richard Newton, Safeway Pension Trustees Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) must be interpreted as precluding, in the absence of an objective justification, a pension scheme from adopting, in order to end discrimination contrary to that provision resulting from the fixing of a normal pension age differentiated by gender, a measure which equalises, with retroactive effect, the normal pension age of members of that scheme to that of the persons within the previously disadvantaged category, in respect of the period between the announcement of that measure and its adoption, even where such a measure is authorised under national law and under the Trust Deed governing that pension scheme.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-189/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167 and 168 - Right to deduct VAT - Refusal - Fraud - Taking of evidence - Principle of respect for the rights of defence - Right to be heard - Access to the file - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial review - Principle of equality of arms - Adversarial principle - National legislation or a national practice whereby, during an assessment of the right to deduct VAT exercised by a taxable person, the tax authority is bound by the findings of fact and legal qualifications which were made by it in the context of related administrative procedures to which that taxable person was not party)

(2019/C 423/09)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, the principle of respect for the rights of defence and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, legislation or a practice of a Member State whereby, during an assessment of the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) exercised by a taxable person, the tax authority is bound by the findings of fact and legal qualifications already made by it in the context of related administrative procedures brought against that taxable person’s suppliers, on which are based decisions which have become final finding the existence of VAT fraud committed by those suppliers, on condition, firstly, that it does not absolve the tax authority of the need to make evidence known to the taxable person, including evidence resulting from those related administrative procedures, on the basis of which it intends to take a decision, and that that taxable person is not thereby deprived of the right to effectively call into question those findings of fact and legal qualifications during the proceedings concerning him, secondly, that that taxable person have access during those proceedings to all of the evidence collected during those related administrative procedures or any other procedure on which that authority intends to base its decision or which may be useful to the exercise of the rights of defence, unless objectives of public interest warrant restricting that access and, thirdly, that the court ruling on an action against that decision be able to assess the lawfulness of the collecting and use of that evidence and the findings made in the administration decisions taken in relation to those suppliers, which are decisive to the outcome of the action.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Freistaat Thüringen

(Case C-239/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Derogation provided for in Article 14 - Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 - Article 11(1) and (2) - Requests for information - Information provided by official bodies - Request for information on the actual use of material of specific species or varieties - Content of the request)

(2019/C 423/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

Defendant: Freistaat Thüringen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights must be interpreted as meaning that it does not provide the possibility for the holder of the Community plant variety right to request information from an official body on the use of material of species, without such a request defining the specific protected variety for which that information is requested.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — UPM France v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Case C-270/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Third subparagraph of Article 21(5) - Exemption of small producers of electricity, subject to the taxation of electricity produced - Lack, during an authorised transitional period, of an internal tax on end consumption of electricity - Article 14(1)(a) - Obligation to exempt energy products and electricity used to produce electricity)

(2019/C 423/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UPM France SAS

Respondent: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of the third subparagraph of Article 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption provided for in that provision for small electricity producers, provided that, by way of derogation from Article 14(1)(a) of that directive, the energy products used to produce that electricity are taxed, could not be applied by the French Republic during the transitional period granted to it, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 18(10) of that directive, until 1 January 2009 and during which that Member State did not introduce the electricity taxation system provided for in that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 — Alcogroup SA, Alcodis SA v European Commission, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles

(Case C-403/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Ethanol market - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 20(4) - Inspection decision - Conduct of the inspection - Legal professional privilege - Refusal to suspend measures of investigation - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Preparatory decision)

(2019/C 423/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Alcogroup SA, Alcodis SA (represented by P. de Bandt, J. Dewispelaere and J. Probst, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, V. Bottka, C. Giolito and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents), Orde van Vlaamse Balies (represented by: F. Wijckmans and S. De Keer, advocaten, and by S. Engelen, avocat), Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and P. Goffinet, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Alcogroup SA and Alcodis SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alcogroup SA and Alcodis SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Südzucker AG v Hauptzollamt Karlsruhe

(Case C-423/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of markets - Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 - Article 3(2) - Sugar - Surplus amount - Time limit for notifying the total levy to be paid - Time limit for a retrospective correction - Principles of proportionality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)

(2019/C 423/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Südzucker AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Karlsruhe

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The first sentence of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards sugar production in excess of the quota must be interpreted as meaning that, where a notification of a levy on a sugar surplus is sent by the competent authority of a Member State to the sugar producer concerned in accordance with the time limit provided for by that provision, that time limit applies, in principle, also to the correction of such a notification resulting from a review carried out under Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards the management of the Community market in sugar and the quota system, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 707/2008 of 24 July 2008. A failure to comply with that deadline may however be accepted where the competent national authority, without negligence on its part, did not know the details of the undertaking's sugar production and where that lack of knowledge may reasonably be attributed to the undertaking, because it has not acted in good faith and has not complied with all the relevant provisions. It is for the referring court to determine whether such is the case in the main proceedings, in the light of all of the facts of that case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first sentence of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards sugar production in excess of the quota must be interpreted as meaning that, where a notification of a levy on a sugar surplus is sent by the competent authority of a Member State to the sugar producer concerned in accordance with the time limit provided for by that provision, that time limit applies, in principle, also to the correction of such a notification resulting from a review carried out under Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards the management of the Community market in sugar and the quota system, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 707/2008 of 24 July 2008. A failure to comply with that deadline may however be accepted where the competent national authority, without negligence on its part, did not know the details of the undertaking's sugar production and where that lack of knowledge may reasonably be attributed to the undertaking, because it has not acted in good faith and has not complied with all the relevant provisions. It is for the referring court to determine whether such is the case in the main proceedings, in the light of all of the facts of that case.

| 2. | In the absence of provisions of EU law concerning the time limit within which the Member States must send to sugar producers a corrected notification of a levy on a surplus of sugar produced, after the expiry of the time limit fixed by the first sentence of Article 3(2)of Regulation No 967/2006, it is for the national court to verify, in each specific case and in the light of all of the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, whether that time limit respects the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the absence of provisions of EU law concerning the time limit within which the Member States must send to sugar producers a corrected notification of a levy on a surplus of sugar produced, after the expiry of the time limit fixed by the first sentence of Article 3(2)of Regulation No 967/2006, it is for the national court to verify, in each specific case and in the light of all of the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, whether that time limit respects the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and the principle of legal certainty.

---

(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-459/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Deduction for risk capital - Reduction of the amount deductible by companies with a permanent establishment in another Member State which generates exempt income under a double taxation convention - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Unfavourable treatment - No such treatment)

(2019/C 423/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, for the calculation of a deduction granted to a company subject to full tax liability in a Member State and having a permanent establishment in another Member State the income from which is exempt in the first Member State under a double taxation convention, the net value of the assets of such a permanent establishment is taken into account, initially, in the calculation of the deduction for risk capital granted to the resident company, but, subsequently, the amount of the deduction is reduced by the lesser of the following amounts, namely the part of the deduction for risk capital which relates to the permanent establishment or the positive result generated by that permanent establishment, whereas such a reduction is not applied in the case of a permanent establishment situated in the first Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — SD v Agrárminiszter

(Case C-490/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Apiculture sector - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1366 - Application for aid - Conditions - Minimum number of bee colonies - Fixing with retro-active effect - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations)

(2019/C 423/15)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SD

Defendant: Agrárminiszter

Operative part of the judgment

Subject to verifications which it is for the referring court to carry out, the principles of legal certainty and of protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in accordance with Article 55(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, establishes the programme in the apiculture sector for a new period of three years, firstly, fixes the conditions for the grant of aid in that sector different from those provided for in the previous programmes, and, secondly, allows beekeepers to benefit from that aid from a date prior to the entry into force of that regulation, if they fulfil the new conditions provided for by that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 – Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark v Gabriele Schmid, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-514/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Union trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 15 - Concept of ‘genuine use’ - Requirement to use the mark in accordance with its essential function)

(2019/C 423/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (represented by: I. Hödl and S. Schoeller, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Gabriele Schmid (represented by: B. Kuchar, Rechtsanwälte), European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders the Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Regional Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry of Styria, Austria) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and those incurred by Ms Gabriele Schmid. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Regional Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry of Styria, Austria) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and those incurred by Ms Gabriele Schmid.

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/14

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — BGL BNP Paribas SA v TeamBank AG Nürnberg

(Case C-548/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Law applicable to contractual obligations - Article 14 - Assignment of claims - Third-party effects)

(2019/C 423/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BGL BNP Paribas SA

Defendant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (‘Rome I’) must be interpreted as not designating, directly or by analogy, the applicable law concerning the third-party effects of the assignment of a claim in the event of multiple assignments of the claim by the same creditor to successive assignees.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Caseificio Cirigliana Srl, Mail Srl, Sorì Italia Srl v Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero della Salute

(Case C-569/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 4(c) and Article 7(1)(e) - Quality schemes applicable to agricultural products and foodstuffs - Fair competition - PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana - Obligation to separate production areas for ‘PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana’)

(2019/C 423/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties in the main proceedings

Appellants: Caseificio Cirigliana Srl, Mail Srl, Sorì Italia Srl

Respondents: Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero della Salute

Intervener: Consorzio di Tutela del Formaggio Mozzarella di Bufala Campana

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(c) and Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and the product specification for ‘PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana’ must be interpreted as not precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which provide that ‘PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana’ must be produced in areas exclusively designated for the production of that cheese, including within one set of premises, in which the holding and storage of milk originating from farms that are not subject to the monitoring system for the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Mozzarella di Bufala Campana’ is prohibited, if those rules are a necessary and proportionate means of safeguarding the quality of that product or ensuring that the specification for that PDO is monitored, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.11.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — C GmbH & Co. KG (C-573/18), C-eG (C-574/18) v Finanzamt Z

(Joined Cases C-573/18 and C-574/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 11A(1)(a) - Taxable amount - Subsidy directly linked to price - Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 - Article 11(1) and Article 15 - Producer organisation having set up an operational fund - Deliveries made by the producer organisation to its members in exchange for payments not covering the entirety of the purchase price - Additional financing paid by the operational fund)

(2019/C 423/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: C GmbH & Co. KG (C-573/18), C-eG (C-574/18)

Defendant: Finanzamt Z

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in which a ‘producer organisation’, within the meaning of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruits and vegetables, purchases goods from input suppliers, supplies those goods to its partner members and obtains from them a payment not covering the purchase price, the amount that an operational fund, such as provided for in Article 15 of that regulation, pays to that producer organisation for the supply of those goods to producers is incorporated in the consideration for that supply and must be regarded as a subsidy directly linked to the price of that supply, paid for by a third party.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège — Belgium) — Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique v QC, Comida paralela 12.

(Case C-579/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Excise duties - Directive 2008/118/EC - Articles 8 and 38 - Person liable to pay excise duty following the unlawful introduction of goods into the territory of a Member State - Concept - Company civilly liable for acts committed by its manager)

(2019/C 423/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique

Defendants: QC, Comida paralela 12

Operative part of the judgment

Article 38 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC, read in conjunction with Article 8(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the event of the unlawful introduction into the territory of a Member State of excise goods released for consumption in another Member State, makes a legal entity which is civilly liable for the criminal offences committed by its manager jointly and severally liable for the excise duties.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Unitel Sp. z o.o. w Warszawie v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Case C-653/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 146 - Exemptions on exportation - Concept of ‘supply of goods’ - Article 131 - Conditions laid down by the Member States - Principle of proportionality - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Evidence - Tax evasion - Practice of a Member State consisting in refusing the right to exemption where the person acquiring the goods exported is not identified)

(2019/C 423/21)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Unitel Sp. z o.o. w Warszawie

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality must be interpreted as precluding a national practice, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in considering in all cases that there is no supply of goods, within the meaning of that former provision, and in refusing as a result the value added tax (VAT) exemption, where the goods concerned were exported to a destination outside the European Union and where, following their exportation, the tax authorities found that the person acquiring those goods was not the person stated on the invoice issued by the taxable person but another entity which has not been identified. In such circumstances, the VAT exemption provided for in Article 146(1)(a) and (b) of that directive must be refused if the failure to identify the person actually acquiring the goods prevents it from being proved that the transaction at issue constitutes a supply of goods within the meaning of that provision or if it is established that that taxable person knew or ought to have known that that transaction was part of a fraud committed to the detriment of the common system of VAT. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality must be interpreted as precluding a national practice, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in considering in all cases that there is no supply of goods, within the meaning of that former provision, and in refusing as a result the value added tax (VAT) exemption, where the goods concerned were exported to a destination outside the European Union and where, following their exportation, the tax authorities found that the person acquiring those goods was not the person stated on the invoice issued by the taxable person but another entity which has not been identified. In such circumstances, the VAT exemption provided for in Article 146(1)(a) and (b) of that directive must be refused if the failure to identify the person actually acquiring the goods prevents it from being proved that the transaction at issue constitutes a supply of goods within the meaning of that provision or if it is established that that taxable person knew or ought to have known that that transaction was part of a fraud committed to the detriment of the common system of VAT.

| 2. | Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that where, in those circumstances, there is a refusal to grant the value added tax (VAT) exemption provided for in Article 146(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/112, the transaction in question should be considered not to constitute a taxable transaction and, accordingly, not to confer entitlement to the deduction of input VAT. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that where, in those circumstances, there is a refusal to grant the value added tax (VAT) exemption provided for in Article 146(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/112, the transaction in question should be considered not to constitute a taxable transaction and, accordingly, not to confer entitlement to the deduction of input VAT.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against NJ

(Case C-489/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ - Minimum requirements on which validity depends - Article 6(1) - Concept of “issuing judicial authority” - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State - Status - Whether subordinate to a body of the executive - Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case - Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission)

(2019/C 423/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Party to the main proceedings

NJ

In the presence of: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of a ‘European arrest warrant’ referred to in Article 1(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that European arrest warrants issued by the public prosecutor’s offices of a Member State fall within that concept, despite the fact that those public prosecutor’s offices are exposed to the risk of being subject, directly or indirectly, to directions or instructions in a specific case from the executive, such as a Minister for Justice, in the context of the issue of those arrest warrants, provided that those arrest warrants are subject, in order to be transmitted by those public prosecutor’s offices, to endorsement by a court which reviews independently and objectively, having access to the entire criminal file to which any specific directions or instructions from the executive are added, the conditions of issue and the proportionality of those arrest warrants, thus adopting an autonomous decision which gives them their final form.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/19

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Haskovo — Bulgaria) — SZ v Mitnitsa Burgas

(Case C-652/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Article 3(1) - Infringement of the obligation to declare - Article 9(1) - Penalties provided for by national law - National legislation - Fine and confiscation of the undeclared sum by the State - Proportionality)

(2019/C 423/23)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Haskovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SZ

Defendant: Mitnitsa Burgas

in the presence of: Okrazhna prokuratura — Haskovo

Operative part of the order

Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of penalising an infringement of the obligation to declare provided for in Article 3 of that regulation, provides that, in addition to the imposition of an administrative fine, the undeclared sum is to be confiscated by the State.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/19

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 October 2019 — Andrew Clarke v European Commission

(Case C-284/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Action for annulment - Actions for failure to act - Refusal of the European Commission to bring infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU against a Member State)

(2019/C 423/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Andrew Clarke (represented by: E. Lock, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Andrew Clarke shall pay his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Andrew Clarke shall pay his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/20

---

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2019 — (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against QR

(Case C-467/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Article 7(4) - Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent and right not to incriminate oneself - Agreement between the prosecutor and the offender - Approval of such an agreement by the court - Condition - Consent of the other accused persons - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Not applicable)

(2019/C 423/25)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Criminal proceedings against

QR

interveners: Spetsializirana prokuratura, YM, ZK, HD

Operative part of the order

Article 7(4) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that it does not govern the issue of whether or not the approval, by a court, of an agreement on the imposition of a negotiated sentence, such as the agreement at issue in the main proceedings, concluded between a person accused, on the basis of his alleged membership of a criminal group, and the prosecutor, may be rendered subject to the condition that the other persons accused, on the basis of their membership of that criminal group, must give their consent to the conclusion of that agreement.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 11 September 2019 — M, A, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, other parties: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, T

(Case C-673/19)

(2019/C 423/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M, A, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, T

Question referred

Does 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), (1) in particular Articles 3, 4, 6 and 15 thereof, preclude a foreign national who enjoys international protection in another EU Member State from being detained under national law, given that the purpose of the detention is removal to that other Member State and, for that reason, an instruction to depart to the territory of that Member State had initially been issued but no return decision was subsequently taken?

---

(1)  P. 98.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov (Romania) lodged on 12 September 2019 – NL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

(Case C-679/19)

(2019/C 423/27)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Ilfov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NL

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (1) to be interpreted as precluding a penalty such as that laid down in Article 653(i) of Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 707/2006 (Government Decree No 707/2006), which provides that cash in excess of EUR 10 000 that has not been declared in writing to the customs authority is to be confiscated in its entirety and permanently? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (1) to be interpreted as precluding a penalty such as that laid down in Article 653(i) of Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 707/2006 (Government Decree No 707/2006), which provides that cash in excess of EUR 10 000 that has not been declared in writing to the customs authority is to be confiscated in its entirety and permanently?

| 2. | Is Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community to be interpreted as precluding the application by Member States of an administrative penalty consisting in the confiscation of the entire undeclared amount without any prior or subsequent verification of the provenance or destination of the amounts and regardless of their provenance and destination? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community to be interpreted as precluding the application by Member States of an administrative penalty consisting in the confiscation of the entire undeclared amount without any prior or subsequent verification of the provenance or destination of the amounts and regardless of their provenance and destination?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 9).

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 16 September 2019 – Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas, S.L. v Administración del Estado and Others

(Case C-683/19)

(2019/C 423/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas, S.L.

Defendants: Administración del Estado, Iberdrola, S.A., Gas Natural SDG, S.A., EDP España, S.A., CIDE, Asociación de Distribuidores de Energía Eléctrica, Endesa, S.A., Agri-Energía, S.A., Navarro Generación, S.A., Electra del Cardener, Serviliano García, S.A., Energías de Benasque, S.L., Candín Energía, S.L., Cooperativa Eléctrica Benéfica Catralense, Cooperativa Valenciana, Eléctrica Vaquer, S.A., Hijos de José Bassols, S.A., Electra Aduriz, S.A., El Gas, S.A., Estabanell y Pahisa, S.A., Electra Caldense, S.A., Cooperativa Popular de Fluid Electric Camprodon, S.C.C.L., Fuciños Rivas, S.L., Electra del Maestrazgo, S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | In accordance with the case-law established by the Court of Justice, in its judgments of 20 April 2010 (Case C-265/08, Federutility) (1) and of 7 September 2016 (Case C-121/15, ANODE) (2) amongst others, is national legislation — such as that established in Article 45(4) of Ley 24/2013, de 26 de diciembre (Law No 24 of 26 December 2013) and subsequently implemented by Articles 2 and 3 of Real Decreto 968/2014, de 21 de noviembre (Royal Decree No 968 of 21 November 2014) – under which the financing of the ‘bono social’ [regulated discount for electricity for certain vulnerable consumers; ‘the regulated discount’] falls on certain actors in the electricity system, namely the parent companies of company groups or, where applicable, companies that simultaneously carry on electricity production, distribution and retail activities, compatible with the requirements laid down in Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC, (3) where some of those actors carry very little weight in the sector as a whole, and where, by contrast, other entities or company groups that may be in a better position to bear that cost, either due to their turnover, relative size in a business sector or because they carry on two of those activities simultaneously on an integrated basis, are exempted from that burden? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In accordance with the case-law established by the Court of Justice, in its judgments of 20 April 2010 (Case C-265/08, Federutility) (1) and of 7 September 2016 (Case C-121/15, ANODE) (2) amongst others, is national legislation — such as that established in Article 45(4) of Ley 24/2013, de 26 de diciembre (Law No 24 of 26 December 2013) and subsequently implemented by Articles 2 and 3 of Real Decreto 968/2014, de 21 de noviembre (Royal Decree No 968 of 21 November 2014) – under which the financing of the ‘bono social’ [regulated discount for electricity for certain vulnerable consumers; ‘the regulated discount’] falls on certain actors in the electricity system, namely the parent companies of company groups or, where applicable, companies that simultaneously carry on electricity production, distribution and retail activities, compatible with the requirements laid down in Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC, (3) where some of those actors carry very little weight in the sector as a whole, and where, by contrast, other entities or company groups that may be in a better position to bear that cost, either due to their turnover, relative size in a business sector or because they carry on two of those activities simultaneously on an integrated basis, are exempted from that burden?

| 2. | Is national legislation according to which the obligation to finance the regulated discount is not established on an exceptional basis or limited in time, but indefinitely and with no refund or compensatory measure whatsoever, compatible with the requirement of proportionality established in Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is national legislation according to which the obligation to finance the regulated discount is not established on an exceptional basis or limited in time, but indefinitely and with no refund or compensatory measure whatsoever, compatible with the requirement of proportionality established in Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC?

---

(1)  EU:C:2010:205.

(2)  EU:C:2016:637.

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

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 18 September 2019 — Banco Santander, S.A. v VF and WD

(Case C-691/19)

(2019/C 423/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco Santander, S.A.

Defendants: VF and WD

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a judicial interpretation (according to which the repayment of sums unduly paid under a costs clause included in a mortgage loan agreement concluded with a consumer is the effect not of a declaration of invalidity but of an independent action subject to a limitation period) which allows a consumer to be permanently bound by the costs clause, inasmuch as he will not be able to recover those costs if that action has become time-barred, compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not binding, recognised in Article 6(1) of Directive (1) [93/13]? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a judicial interpretation (according to which the repayment of sums unduly paid under a costs clause included in a mortgage loan agreement concluded with a consumer is the effect not of a declaration of invalidity but of an independent action subject to a limitation period) which allows a consumer to be permanently bound by the costs clause, inasmuch as he will not be able to recover those costs if that action has become time-barred, compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not binding, recognised in Article 6(1) of Directive (1) [93/13]?

| 2. | Is the act of time-barring a claim for the restitution of sums unduly paid pursuant to the application of a clause which has been declared unfair compatible with that principle, inasmuch as it may cause the right to restitution to be lost, notwithstanding the declaration as to the invalidity of that clause? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the act of time-barring a claim for the restitution of sums unduly paid pursuant to the application of a clause which has been declared unfair compatible with that principle, inasmuch as it may cause the right to restitution to be lost, notwithstanding the declaration as to the invalidity of that clause?

| 3. | If the answer is in the affirmative, is the concept of a ‘reasonable limitation period’ to which the Court of Justice refers to be interpreted within an exclusively national context or, conversely, must reasonableness be subject to some form of requirement aimed at providing a minimum level of protection for borrowers throughout the European Union and ensuring that the substantive content of the right not to be bound by a clause which has been declared unfair is not adversely affected? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer is in the affirmative, is the concept of a ‘reasonable limitation period’ to which the Court of Justice refers to be interpreted within an exclusively national context or, conversely, must reasonableness be subject to some form of requirement aimed at providing a minimum level of protection for borrowers throughout the European Union and ensuring that the substantive content of the right not to be bound by a clause which has been declared unfair is not adversely affected?

| 4. | If the view is taken that the reasonableness of the limitation period must be subject to certain minimum preconditions, may reasonableness depend on the point in time at which a national law stipulates that the action may be brought?; is it reasonable for the limitation period to start to run on the date on which the agreement was concluded, or, conversely, does the principle that unfair terms are not binding require a prior or simultaneous declaration as to the invalidity of the costs clause so as to ensure that the borrower has a reasonable period within which to seek the reimbursement of the sums which have been unduly paid? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the view is taken that the reasonableness of the limitation period must be subject to certain minimum preconditions, may reasonableness depend on the point in time at which a national law stipulates that the action may be brought?; is it reasonable for the limitation period to start to run on the date on which the agreement was concluded, or, conversely, does the principle that unfair terms are not binding require a prior or simultaneous declaration as to the invalidity of the costs clause so as to ensure that the borrower has a reasonable period within which to seek the reimbursement of the sums which have been unduly paid?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Watford Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 19 September 2019 – B v Yodel Delivery Network Ltd

(Case C-692/19)

(2019/C 423/30)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Watford Employment Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B

Defendant: Yodel Delivery Network Ltd

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Directive 2003/88/EC (1) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time preclude provisions of national law which require an individual to undertake to do or perform all of the work or services required of him, ‘personally’ in order to fall within the scope of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Directive 2003/88/EC (1) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time preclude provisions of national law which require an individual to undertake to do or perform all of the work or services required of him, ‘personally’ in order to fall within the scope of the Directive?

| 2. | In particular:






  2.1. | Does the fact that an individual has the right to engage sub-contractors or ‘substitutes’ to perform all or any part of the work or services required of him mean that he is not to be regarded as a worker for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC either:






  2.1.1. | at all (the right to substitute being inconsistent with the status of worker); or |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.

In particular:

2.1.

Does the fact that an individual has the right to engage sub-contractors or ‘substitutes’ to perform all or any part of the work or services required of him mean that he is not to be regarded as a worker for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC either:

2.1.1.

at all (the right to substitute being inconsistent with the status of worker); or

| 2.1.2. | only in respect of any period of time when exercising such right of substitution (so that he is to be regarded as a worker in relation to periods of time actually spent performing work or services)? |
| --- | --- |

2.1.2.

only in respect of any period of time when exercising such right of substitution (so that he is to be regarded as a worker in relation to periods of time actually spent performing work or services)?

| 2.2. | Is it material to a determination of worker status for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC that the particular claimant has not in fact availed himself of the right to sub-contract or use a substitute, where others engaged on materially the same terms have done so? |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

Is it material to a determination of worker status for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC that the particular claimant has not in fact availed himself of the right to sub-contract or use a substitute, where others engaged on materially the same terms have done so?

| 2.3. | Is it material to a determination of worker status for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC that other entities including limited companies and limited liability partnerships are engaged on materially the same terms as the particular claimant? |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

Is it material to a determination of worker status for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC that other entities including limited companies and limited liability partnerships are engaged on materially the same terms as the particular claimant?

| 3. | Is it material to a determination of worker status for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC that the putative employer is not obliged to offer work to the individual claimant i.e. that it is offered on a ‘when needed’ basis; and/or that the individual claimant is not obliged to accept it i.e. it is ‘subject always to the Courier's absolute right not to accept any work offered’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it material to a determination of worker status for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC that the putative employer is not obliged to offer work to the individual claimant i.e. that it is offered on a ‘when needed’ basis; and/or that the individual claimant is not obliged to accept it i.e. it is ‘subject always to the Courier's absolute right not to accept any work offered’?

| 4. | Is it material to a determination of worker status for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC that the individual claimant is not obliged to work exclusively for the putative employer but may concurrently perform similar services for any third party, including direct competitors of the putative employer? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it material to a determination of worker status for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC that the individual claimant is not obliged to work exclusively for the putative employer but may concurrently perform similar services for any third party, including direct competitors of the putative employer?

| 5. | Is it material to a determination of worker status for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC that the particular claimant has not in fact availed himself of the right to perform similar services for third parties, where others engaged on materially the same terms have done so? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is it material to a determination of worker status for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC that the particular claimant has not in fact availed himself of the right to perform similar services for third parties, where others engaged on materially the same terms have done so?

| 6. | For the purposes of Art. 2.1 of Directive 2003/88/EC how is a worker's working time to be calculated in circumstances where the individual claimant is not required to work fixed hours but is free to determine his own working hours within certain parameters e.g. between the hours of 7.30am and 9pm? In particular how is working time to be calculated when:






  6.1. | the individual is not required to work exclusively for the putative employer during those hours and/or that certain activities performed during those hours (e.g. driving) may benefit both the putative employer and a third party; |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

For the purposes of Art. 2.1 of Directive 2003/88/EC how is a worker's working time to be calculated in circumstances where the individual claimant is not required to work fixed hours but is free to determine his own working hours within certain parameters e.g. between the hours of 7.30am and 9pm? In particular how is working time to be calculated when:

6.1.

the individual is not required to work exclusively for the putative employer during those hours and/or that certain activities performed during those hours (e.g. driving) may benefit both the putative employer and a third party;

| 6.2. | the worker is afforded a great deal of latitude as to the mode of delivery of work, such that he may tailor his time to suit his personal convenience rather than solely the interests of the putative employer. |
| --- | --- |

6.2.

the worker is afforded a great deal of latitude as to the mode of delivery of work, such that he may tailor his time to suit his personal convenience rather than solely the interests of the putative employer.

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003, L 299, p. 9).

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 24 September 2019 — Novo Banco S.A. v Junta de Andalucía

(Case C-712/19)

(2019/C 423/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Novo Banco S.A.

Respondent: Junta de Andalucía

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 49, 56 and 63 TFEU, which guarantee the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital, respectively, be interpreted as precluding, inter alia, a system of deductions like that laid down for the IDECA in points 2 and 3 of Article 6(7) of Andalusian Law 11/2010 of 3 December on fiscal measures for the reduction of the government deficit and for sustainability? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 49, 56 and 63 TFEU, which guarantee the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital, respectively, be interpreted as precluding, inter alia, a system of deductions like that laid down for the IDECA in points 2 and 3 of Article 6(7) of Andalusian Law 11/2010 of 3 December on fiscal measures for the reduction of the government deficit and for sustainability?

| 2. | Must the tax on customer deposits in credit institutions in Andalusia (IDECA) be categorised as an indirect tax despite the fact that Article 6(2) of Andalusian Law 11/2010 classifies it as a direct tax, and, in that case, are its existence and chargeability compatible with VAT, in the light of the provisions of Articles 401 and 135(1)(d) of the VAT Directive. (1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the tax on customer deposits in credit institutions in Andalusia (IDECA) be categorised as an indirect tax despite the fact that Article 6(2) of Andalusian Law 11/2010 classifies it as a direct tax, and, in that case, are its existence and chargeability compatible with VAT, in the light of the provisions of Articles 401 and 135(1)(d) of the VAT Directive. (1)

---

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

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 26 September 2019 — ZA and Others v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos S.A.

(Case C-716/19)

(2019/C 423/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ZA, AZ, BX, CV, DU, ET

Defendant: Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it possible to conclude, in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1) that the facts as investigated and established in a decision given by a national competition authority of an EU Member State — where that authority acts in accordance with Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU within the remit granted to it pursuant to that regulation, the Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States, and the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities (OJ 2004 C 101, p. 3) of 27 April 2004 — which is subsequently upheld by a higher court and becomes final, have the probative force of full proof and have a constraining or prejudicial effect on the adjudication by another court in subsequent proceedings relating to the same facts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it possible to conclude, in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1) that the facts as investigated and established in a decision given by a national competition authority of an EU Member State — where that authority acts in accordance with Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU within the remit granted to it pursuant to that regulation, the Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States, and the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities (OJ 2004 C 101, p. 3) of 27 April 2004 — which is subsequently upheld by a higher court and becomes final, have the probative force of full proof and have a constraining or prejudicial effect on the adjudication by another court in subsequent proceedings relating to the same facts?

| 2. | If the national competition authority gives a decision on the existence of an infringement in relation to a network of agreements, must it be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the infringer, that all the agreements which make up that network are affected by the wording of the decision? In other words, do decisions given in relation to networks of agreements result in the reversal of the burden of proof? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the national competition authority gives a decision on the existence of an infringement in relation to a network of agreements, must it be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the infringer, that all the agreements which make up that network are affected by the wording of the decision? In other words, do decisions given in relation to networks of agreements result in the reversal of the burden of proof?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty — OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 2 October 2019 – Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group

(Case C-728/19)

(2019/C 423/33)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company

Defendant: PMS International Group

Questions referred

| 1. | For the protection of an unregistered Community design to come into being under art. 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 (1) of 12 December 2001 (‘the Regulation’), by the design being made available to the public within the meaning of art. 11(1), must an event of disclosure, within the meaning of art.11(2), take place within the geographical confines of the Community, or is it sufficient that the event, wherever it took place, was such that, in the normal course of business, the event could reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Community (assuming the design was not disclosed in confidence within the terms of the final sentence of art.11(2))? |
| --- | --- |

1.

For the protection of an unregistered Community design to come into being under art. 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 (1) of 12 December 2001 (‘the Regulation’), by the design being made available to the public within the meaning of art. 11(1), must an event of disclosure, within the meaning of art.11(2), take place within the geographical confines of the Community, or is it sufficient that the event, wherever it took place, was such that, in the normal course of business, the event could reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Community (assuming the design was not disclosed in confidence within the terms of the final sentence of art.11(2))?

| 2. | Is the date for assessing the novelty of a design for which unregistered Community design protection is claimed, within the meaning of art.5(l)(a) of the Regulation, the date on which the unregistered Community design protection for the design came into being according to art.11 of the Regulation, or alternatively the date on which the relevant event of disclosure of the design, within the meaning of art.7(1) of the Regulation, could reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Community (assuming that the design was not disclosed in confidence within the terms of the final sentence of art.7(1)), or alternatively some other, and if so, which date? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the date for assessing the novelty of a design for which unregistered Community design protection is claimed, within the meaning of art.5(l)(a) of the Regulation, the date on which the unregistered Community design protection for the design came into being according to art.11 of the Regulation, or alternatively the date on which the relevant event of disclosure of the design, within the meaning of art.7(1) of the Regulation, could reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Community (assuming that the design was not disclosed in confidence within the terms of the final sentence of art.7(1)), or alternatively some other, and if so, which date?

---

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

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) made on 2 October 2019 – TKF v Department of Justice for Northern Ireland

(Case C-729/19)

(2019/C 423/34)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TKF

Defendant: Department of Justice for Northern Ireland

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 75(2) of the Maintenance Regulation EC 4/2009 (1) be interpreted as applying only to ‘decisions’ which were given in States that were member states of the EU at the time those decisions were made? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 75(2) of the Maintenance Regulation EC 4/2009 (1) be interpreted as applying only to ‘decisions’ which were given in States that were member states of the EU at the time those decisions were made?

| 2. | Bearing in mind that Poland is now a Member State of the European Union which is bound by the Hague Protocol, are maintenance decisions made by a Court in Poland in 1999 and 2003, that is, prior to Poland becoming a member state of the European Union, now capable of being registered and enforced in another EU Member State pursuant to any part of EC Regulation 4/2009 (the Maintenance Regulation),and in particular:






  (a) | pursuant to Article 75(3) and Article 56 of the Maintenance regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Bearing in mind that Poland is now a Member State of the European Union which is bound by the Hague Protocol, are maintenance decisions made by a Court in Poland in 1999 and 2003, that is, prior to Poland becoming a member state of the European Union, now capable of being registered and enforced in another EU Member State pursuant to any part of EC Regulation 4/2009 (the Maintenance Regulation),and in particular:

(a)

pursuant to Article 75(3) and Article 56 of the Maintenance regulation;

| (b) | pursuant to Article 75(2) and Section 2 of Chapter IV of the Maintenance regulation; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

pursuant to Article 75(2) and Section 2 of Chapter IV of the Maintenance regulation;

| (c) | pursuant to Article 75(2)(a) and Section 3 of Chapter IV of the Maintenance regulation; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

pursuant to Article 75(2)(a) and Section 3 of Chapter IV of the Maintenance regulation;

| (d) | pursuant to any other Articles of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

pursuant to any other Articles of the Regulation?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (OJ 2009, L 7, p. 1).

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/28

---

Action brought on 4 October 2019 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council of the European Union, European Parliament

(Case C-733/19)

(2019/C 423/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, M. Noort and P. Huurnink, acting as Agents)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | principally, annul:






  — | point 1 of Part D of Annex V in relation to the pulse-fishing ban; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

principally, annul:

—

point 1 of Part D of Annex V in relation to the pulse-fishing ban;

| — | point 2 of Part D of Annex V to the extent that there is mention of a transition period, and to the extent that there is mention of a condition to allow no more than 5 % of the beam trawler fleet to fish with the beam trawl using electric current (point 2(a)), and |
| --- | --- |

—

point 2 of Part D of Annex V to the extent that there is mention of a transition period, and to the extent that there is mention of a condition to allow no more than 5 % of the beam trawler fleet to fish with the beam trawl using electric current (point 2(a)), and

| — | points 3, 4 and 5 of Part D of Annex V to the contested regulation (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

points 3, 4 and 5 of Part D of Annex V to the contested regulation (1);

| — | in the alternative, should the Court be unable to annul the requested elements of Part D of Annex V, annul Part D of Annex V in its entirety, as well as the phrase ‘which shall ... be allowed’ of Article 7(1)(b) of the contested regulation, in which reference is made to Part D of Annex V; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, should the Court be unable to annul the requested elements of Part D of Annex V, annul Part D of Annex V in its entirety, as well as the phrase ‘which shall ... be allowed’ of Article 7(1)(b) of the contested regulation, in which reference is made to Part D of Annex V;

| — | in the further alternative, should the Court declare inadmissible the principal claim or the alternative claim for partial annulment of the contested regulation, annul the regulation in its entirety, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, should the Court declare inadmissible the principal claim or the alternative claim for partial annulment of the contested regulation, annul the regulation in its entirety, and

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

—

order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea: infringement of Article 3(3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 11 TFEU, with Article 191(3) TEU, with Articles 2, 3(c)(h) and (i) and 6(2) of the CFP Basic Regulation (2) and with Article 3(1) of the contested regulation, in that the Parliament and the Council did not establish the pulse-fishing ban and the transitional period in the contested regulation on the basis of the best available scientific advice.

Second plea: infringement of Article 3(3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 11 TFEU, with Article 173(1) and (3) TFEU, with Articles 2, 3(h) and 6(2) of the CFP Basic Regulation and with Article 3(1) of the contested regulation, in that the Parliament and the Council established the pulse-fishing ban and the transitional period in the contested regulation in contravention of the duty to foster innovation and technological development.

Third plea: infringement of Article 3(3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article TFEU, with the first subparagraph of Article 191(1) TFEU, with Articles 2(2) and 3(h) of the CFP Basic Regulation and with Article 3(1) of the contested regulation, to the extent that the Parliament and the Council based the pulse-fishing ban and the transitional period in the contested regulation on the precautionary principle.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2018/973, (EU) 2019/472 and (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 (OJ 2019 L 198, p. 105).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 22).

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 15 October 2019 — T.H.C. v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-755/19)

(2019/C 423/36)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: T.H.C.

Respondent: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Question referred

Must Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (1) (recast), according to which applicants must have the right to an effective remedy against ‘a decision taken on their application for international protection’, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding a national rule of procedure, such as Article 39/57, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2, point 3o, second sentence, of the loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers (Law of 15 December 1980 on entry to the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreign nationals), read in conjunction with Article 57/6, paragraph 3, subparagraph 1, point 5o, and Article 57/6/2, paragraph 1, of the same law, which fixes at five ‘calendar’ days, from the notification of the administrative decision, the time limit for bringing an action against a decision that a subsequent application for international protection by a third country national, where the ‘foreign national is located, at the time of his application, in a specific place referred to in Articles 74/8 and 74/9 [of the same Law], or is put at the disposal of the government’?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesu kolēģija (Latvia) lodged on 17 October 2019 — SIA ‘CV-Online Latvia’ v SIA ‘Melons’

(Case C-762/19)

(2019/C 423/37)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesu kolēģija

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance and respondent: SIA ‘CV-Online Latvia’

Defendant at first instance and appellant: SIA ‘Melons’

Questions referred

| 1. | Should the defendant’s activities, which consist in using a hyperlink to redirect end users to the applicant’s website, where they can consult a database of job advertisements, be interpreted as falling within the definition of ‘re-utilisation’ in Article 7(2)(b) of the Directive of 11 March 1996 (1) on the legal protection of databases, more specifically, as the re-utilisation of the database by another form of transmission? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should the defendant’s activities, which consist in using a hyperlink to redirect end users to the applicant’s website, where they can consult a database of job advertisements, be interpreted as falling within the definition of ‘re-utilisation’ in Article 7(2)(b) of the Directive of 11 March 1996 (1) on the legal protection of databases, more specifically, as the re-utilisation of the database by another form of transmission?

| 2. | Should the information containing the meta tags that is shown in the defendant’s search engine be interpreted as falling within the definition of ‘extraction’ in Article 7(2)(a) of the Directive of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, more specifically, as the permanent or temporary transfer of all or a substantial part of the contents of a database to another medium by any means or in any form? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the information containing the meta tags that is shown in the defendant’s search engine be interpreted as falling within the definition of ‘extraction’ in Article 7(2)(a) of the Directive of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, more specifically, as the permanent or temporary transfer of all or a substantial part of the contents of a database to another medium by any means or in any form?

---

(1)  Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20).

---

General Court

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Fortischem v Commission

(Case T-121/15) (1)

(State aid - Chemical industry - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - State resources - Advantage - Recovery - Economic continuity - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 423/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and G. Conte, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented initially by P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, A. Borsos and I. Georgiopoulos, lawyers, and subsequently by P. Alexiadis, A. Borsos and V. Dolka, lawyers)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Articles 1 and 3 to 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1826 of 15 October 2014 on the State aid SA.33797 — (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ (OJ 2015 L 269, p. 71).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fortischem a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fortischem a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders AlzChem AG to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders AlzChem AG to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission

(Case T-500/17) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406.4 mm, originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Injury - Price undercutting - Causal link)

(2019/C 423/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co. Ltd (Huangshi, China) (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA (Roman, Romania), Válcovny trub Chomutov a.s. (Chomutov, Czech Republic), Vallourec Deutschland GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/804 of 11 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406.4 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2017 L 121, p. 3), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/804 of 11 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406.4 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as it concerns the products produced by Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co. Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/804 of 11 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406.4 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as it concerns the products produced by Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co. Ltd;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube;

| 3. | Orders ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Válcovny trub Chomutov a.s. and Vallourec Deutschland GmbH to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Válcovny trub Chomutov a.s. and Vallourec Deutschland GmbH to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – BASF v ECHA

(Case T-805/17) (1)

(REACH - Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Article 3(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/9 - Requirement for joint submission of data - Joint submission with possibility of a complete opt-out - Administrative practice of ECHA requiring an agreement on the terms for making a joint submission with the lead registrant for a registered substance - Failure to reach an agreement - Dispute resolution mechanism applied by analogy - Decision granting access to a joint submission - Legal basis - Broad discretion of ECHA - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty)

(2019/C 423/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen-am-Rhein, Germany) (represented by: R. Cana, D. Abrahams, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, C. Jacquet and T. Basmatzi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision DSH-30-3-0122-2017 of ECHA of 2 October 2017 granting Sustainability Support Services (Europe) AB access to the joint submission lodged by BASF, as lead registrant for the substance disodium 4,4'-bis[(4-anilino-6-morpholino-1, 3, 5-triazin-2-yl)amino]stilbene-2,2'-disulphonate, EC No 240-245-2 and CAS No 16090-02-1.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BASF SE and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BASF SE and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – BASF and REACH & colours v ECHA

(Case T-806/17) (1)

(REACH - Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Article 3(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/9 - Requirement for joint submission of data - Joint submission with possibility of a complete opt-out - Administrative practice of ECHA requiring an agreement on the terms for making a joint submission with the lead registrant for a registered substance - Failure to reach an agreement - Dispute resolution mechanism applied by analogy - Decision granting access to a joint submission - Legal basis - Broad discretion of ECHA - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty)

(2019/C 423/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen-am-Rhein, Germany) and REACH & colours Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (REACH & colours Kft.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: R. Cana, D. Abrahams, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, C. Jacquet, and T. Basmatzi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision DSH-30-3-0123-2017 of ECHA of 2 October 2017 granting Sustainability Support Services (Europe) AB access to the joint submission lodged by REACH & colours, as lead registrant for the substance hexasodium 2,2'-[vinylenebis[(3-sulphonato-4,1-phenylene)imino[6-(diethylamino)-1, 3, 5-triazine-4,2-diyl]imino]]bis(benzene-1,4-disulphonate), EC No 255-217-5 and CAS No 41098-56-0.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BASF SE, REACH & colours Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (REACH & colours Kft.) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BASF SE, REACH & colours Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (REACH & colours Kft.) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Pink Lady America v CPVO — WAAA (Cripps Pink)

(Case T-112/18) (1)

(Plant varieties - Nullity proceedings - Cripps Pink apple variety – Articles 10 and 116 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Novelty - Derogative grace period - Definition of exploitation of the variety - Commercial evaluation - Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2009 - Late submission of evidence before the Board of Appeal - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)

(2019/C 423/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pink Lady America LLC (Yakima, Washington, United States)) (represented by: initially by R. Manno and S. Travaglio, and subsequently by R. Manno, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad, F. Mattina and M. Garcia Monco-Fuente Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO and intervener before the General Court: Western Australian Agriculture Authority (WAAA) (South Perth, Australia) (represented by: T. Bouvet and L. Romestant, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 14 September 2017 (Case A 007/2016), relating to nullity proceedings between the WAAA and Pink Lady America LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pink Lady America LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pink Lady America LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of a black square containing seven concentric blue circles)

(Case T-261/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative trade mark depicting a black square containing seven concentric blue circles - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 423/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wallmax Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Ferrari and L. Goglia, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2018 (Case R 940/2017-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Wallmax and Roxtec.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Roxtec AB to pay its own costs along with those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Roxtec AB to pay its own costs along with those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders Wallmax Srl to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Wallmax Srl to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 –Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-300/18) (1)

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

(2019/C 423/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Feodorovych Yanukovych (Rostov on Don, Russia) (represented by: T. Beazley QC, E. Dean and J. Marjason-Stamp, Barristers)

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

Re:

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

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

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-301/18) (1)

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

(2019/C 423/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: T. Beazley QC, E. Dean and J. Marjason-Stamp, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Re:

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

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

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Colombani v EEAS

(Case T-372/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2017 promotion year - Decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 14 - Article 43 and Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Consideration of comparative merits - Taking into account staff reports for the purpose of promotion - Purely literal assessments - No method enabling staff reports to be compared for the purpose of promotion)

(2019/C 423/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 9 November 2017 (ADMIN(2017) 21) not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 14 in the 2017 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 9 November 2017 (ADMIN(2017) 21) not to promote Mr Jean-Marc Colombani to Grade AD 14 in the 2017 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 9 November 2017 (ADMIN(2017) 21) not to promote Mr Jean-Marc Colombani to Grade AD 14 in the 2017 promotion exercise;

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

2.

Orders the EEAS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (PDF Expert)

(Case T-404/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark PDF Expert - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 423/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Igor Zhadanov (Odessa, Ukraine) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2018 (Case R 1813/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the sign PDF Expert as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Igor Zhadanov to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Igor Zhadanov to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 – McDreams Hotel GmbH v EUIPO – McDonald’s International Property (mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis!)

(Case T-428/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis! - Earlier EU word mark McDONALD’S - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Family of marks - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark)

(2019/C 423/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: McDreams Hotel GmbH (Feldkirchen, Germany) (represented by: S. Schenk and S. Kleinmanns, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: C. Eckhartt and K. Thanbichler-Brandl, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2018 (Case R 972/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between McDonald’s International Property Co. and McDreams Hotel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders McDreams Hotel GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders McDreams Hotel GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the intervener.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/40

---

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

(Case T-453/18) (1)

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

(2019/C 423/49)

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 10 May 2018 (Case R 1270/2017-2), 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.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — Vafo Praha v EUIPO — Rutzinger-Kurpas (Meatlove)

(Case T-491/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Meatlove - Earlier EU word mark carnilove - 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 423/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vafo Praha s.r.o. (Chrášt’any, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Vojáček, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas (Spiegelau, Germany) (represented by: F. Lichtnecker, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 (Case R 264/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Vafo Praha and Ms Rutzinger-Kurpas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 June 2018 (Case R 264/2018-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 June 2018 (Case R 264/2018-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Vafo Praha s.r.o.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Vafo Praha s.r.o.;

| 3. | Orders Ms Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas to bear her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ms Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas to bear her own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — IAK — Forum International v EUIPO — Schwalb (IAK)

(Case T-497/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark IAK - Earlier national word mark IAK - Institut für angewandte Kreativität - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark)

(2019/C 423/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: IAK GmbH — Forum International (Kirchzarten, Germany) (represented by: G. Wilke, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Ulrich Schwalb (Cologne, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2018 (Case R 1511/2017-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Schwalb and IAK — Forum International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders IAK GmbH — Forum International to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders IAK GmbH — Forum International to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — Puma v EUIPO — Destilerias MG (MG PUMA)

(Case T-500/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark MG PUMA - Earlier EU word mark GINMG - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 423/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. Trieb and M. Schunke, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Destilerias MG, SL (Vilanova i la Geltru, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 (Case R 2019/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Destilerias MG and Puma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Puma SE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Puma SE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO – Dalian Wanda Group (WANDA FILMS)

(Case T-533/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark WANDA FILMS - Earlier EU word mark WANDA - Relative ground for refusal - Restriction of the application for registration - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 423/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Wanda Films, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) and Wanda Visión, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón) (represented by: C. Planas Silva, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd (Dalian, China) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and by T. Dolde and K. Lüder, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2018 (Case R 401/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Dalian Wanda Group and Wanda Films.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wanda Films, SL and Wanda Visión, SA to pay the costs, including those incurred by Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wanda Films, SL and Wanda Visión, SA to pay the costs, including those incurred by Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS)

(Case T-536/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark FITNESS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court - Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal)

(2019/C 423/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: European Food SA (Drăgănești, Romania) (represented by: I. Speciac, R. Dincă, I.-F. Cofaru, V.-F. Diaconită and V. Stănese, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 (Case R 755/2018-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between European Food and Société des produits Nestlé.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 June 2018 (Case R 755/2018-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 June 2018 (Case R 755/2018-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA;

| 3. | Orders European Food SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders European Food SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO – Dalian Wanda Group Co. (wanda films)

(Case T-542/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark wanda films - Earlier EU word mark WANDA - Relative ground for refusal - Restriction of the application for registration - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 423/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Wanda Films, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) and Wanda Visión, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón) (represented by: C. Planas Silva, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd (Dalian, China) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and by T. Dolde and K. Lüder, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 (Case R 829/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Dalian Wanda Group and Wanda Films.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wanda Films, SL and Wanda Visión, SA to pay the costs, including those incurred by Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wanda Films, SL and Wanda Visión, SA to pay the costs, including those incurred by Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 – ZM and Others v Council

(Case T-632/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Members of the temporary staff - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Refusal to reimburse education costs - Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

(2019/C 423/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZM, ZN and ZO (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Council (represented by: R. Meyer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Council’s decisions not to reimburse the applicants, in respect of the school year 2017/2018, for the education costs notified by means of an individual decision or via Sysper/Ariane, the internal IT system.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ZM, ZN and ZO to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ZM, ZN and ZO to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper)

(Case T-666/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Figurative mark ad pepper - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

(2019/C 423/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: 6Minutes Media GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch and T. Hilser, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ad pepper media International NV (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Lux, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2018 (Case R 839/2017-1), relating to revocation proceedings between 6Minutes Media and ad pepper media International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders 6Minutes Media GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders 6Minutes Media GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ADPepper)

(Case T-668/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Word mark ADPepper - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) and Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

(2019/C 423/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: 6Minutes Media GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch and T. Hilser, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ad pepper media International NV (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Lux, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2018 (Case R 840/2017-1), relating to revocation proceedings between 6Minutes Media and ad pepper media International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders 6Minutes Media GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders 6Minutes Media GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — LegalCareers v EUIPO (LEGALCAREERS)

(Case T-686/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark LEGALCAREERS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 7(1)(b)of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 423/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: LegalCareers GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Nielen, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 September 2018 (Case R 234/2018-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign LEGALCAREERS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LegalCareers GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LegalCareers GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Kalypso Media Group v EUIPO — Wizards of the Coast (DUNGEONS)

(Case T-700/18) (1)

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

(2019/C 423/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kalypso Media Group GmbH (Worms, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaité-Orlovskiené, A. Folliard-Monguiral and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Wizards of the Coast LLC (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2018 (Case R 599/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Wizards of the Coast and Kalypso Media Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — DQ and Others v Parliament

(Case T-730/18) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Scope of the duty to provide assistance - Removal measure - Duration of the administrative procedure - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2019/C 423/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: DQ and 11 other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants essentially as a result of inappropriate handling of their request for assistance concerning psychological harassment ascribed to their line manager.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the European Parliament to pay to DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, an overall amount of EUR 36 000, to be divided amongst them, in respect of the non-material damage suffered, together with interest, from the date of 13 December 2017, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points, until the date of payment by the Parliament of the amount of EUR 36 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Parliament to pay to DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, an overall amount of EUR 36 000, to be divided amongst them, in respect of the non-material damage suffered, together with interest, from the date of 13 December 2017, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points, until the date of payment by the Parliament of the amount of EUR 36 000;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex;

| 4. | Orders DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, to bear half of their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, to bear half of their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Daimler v EUIPO (ROAD EFFICIENCY)

(Case T-749/18) (1)

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

(2019/C 423/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2018 (Case R 2701/2017-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ROAD EFFICIENCY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Daimler AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Daimler AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/50

---

Order of the General Court of 24 September 2019 –Opere Pie d’Onigo v Commission

(Case T-491/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme established by Italy for certain providers of socio-sanitary services - Costs associated with staff absences in respect of maternity and care provided to dependent family members - Contributions paid by the State to private undertakings - Decision not to raise any objections - No placement in an unfavourable competitive position - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 423/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Istituzione pubblica di assistenza e beneficenza ‘Opere Pie d’Onigo’ (Pederobba, Italy) (represented by: G. Maso, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27 March 2017 not to raise objections to the aid scheme established by Italy for certain private providers of socio-sanitary services (State aid SA.38825 (2016/NN)) (OJ 2017 C 219, p. 1).

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 rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Ipab di Vicenza, Ipab Casa Gino e Pierina Marani, Ipab Centro Residenziale per Anziani di Cittadella, Azienda Pubblica dei Servizi alla Persona ‘Grimani Buttari — residenze per Anziani in Osimo’ and the Italian Republic. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Ipab di Vicenza, Ipab Casa Gino e Pierina Marani, Ipab Centro Residenziale per Anziani di Cittadella, Azienda Pubblica dei Servizi alla Persona ‘Grimani Buttari — residenze per Anziani in Osimo’ and the Italian Republic.

| 3. | Istituzione pubblica di assistenza e beneficenza ‘Opere Pie d’Onigo’ shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Istituzione pubblica di assistenza e beneficenza ‘Opere Pie d’Onigo’ shall pay the costs.

| 4. | Ipab di Vicenza, Ipab Casa Gino e Pierina Marani, Ipab Centro Residenziale per Anziani di Cittadella, Azienda Pubblica dei Servizi alla Persona ‘Grimani Buttari — residenze per Anziani in Osimo’ and the Italian Republic shall each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Ipab di Vicenza, Ipab Casa Gino e Pierina Marani, Ipab Centro Residenziale per Anziani di Cittadella, Azienda Pubblica dei Servizi alla Persona ‘Grimani Buttari — residenze per Anziani in Osimo’ and the Italian Republic shall each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/51

---

Order of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — CX v Commission

(Case T-605/17) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Decision of the Commission to recover salaries paid to the applicant - Debit note ordering recovery of the sums at issue - Replacement of the contested measures in the course of the proceedings - Abandonment of any measure seeking the recovery of the sums at issue - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 423/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CX (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the measures seeking recovery of the salaries paid for the months of November 2013 to October 2016.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Each party shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/51

---

Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-677/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Internal market - Environment - Regulation (EU) 2017/1154 - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 423/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Jones, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Becker, G. Gattinara and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1154 of 7 June 2017 amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information, amending Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1230/2012 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 and Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards real-driving emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) (OJ 2017 L 175, p. 708).

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 392, 20.11.2017.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/52

---

Order of the General Court of 25 September 2019 — Triantafyllopoulos and Others v ECB

(Case T-451/18) (1)

(Action for damages - Harm allegedly caused to the applicants due to the absence of supervision of the Achaiki Cooperative Bank by the National Bank of Greece and the ECB - Limitation period - Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Causal link - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

(2019/C 423/66)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Panagiotis Triantafyllopoulos (Patras, Greece) and the 487 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: N. Ioannou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernandez Saseta and M. Anastasiou, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking reparation for harm which was allegedly caused to the applicants due to the inadequate supervision by the ECB of Trapeza tis Ellados (National Bank of Greece) which, for its part, inadequately supervised Αchaiki Syneteristiki Τrapeza Syn. PE (the Achaiki Cooperative Bank, Greece), in which the applicants hold shares.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Panagiotis Triantafyllopoulos and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Panagiotis Triantafyllopoulos and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/53

---

Order of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Aeris Invest v SRB

(Case T-599/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary policy - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms - Resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - No ex-post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 423/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, P. Medina Sánchez and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: A. Valavanidou, I. Georgiopoulos and E. Muratori, acting as Agents, and B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Málaga Diéguez, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch, M. Bettermann, S. Ianc and M. Rickert, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the ‘decision of the SRB, notified to the applicant by letter of 14 September 2018, not to carry out an ex-post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español, SA’.

Operative part of the order

The Court orders:

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Aeris Invest Sàrl shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Aeris Invest Sàrl shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/54

---

Order of the General Court of 9 October 2019 — Essity Hygiene and Health v EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)

(Case T-607/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a leaf - Absolute ground for refusal - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 423/68)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Essity Hygiene and Health AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: U. Wennermark, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 (Case R 2196/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a leaf as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/54

---

Order of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — Nissin Foods Holdings v EUIPO — The GB Foods (Soba JAPANESE FRIED NOODLES)

(Case T-663/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Soba JAPANESE FRIED NOODLES - Absolute ground for invalidity - Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2019/C 423/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nissin Foods Holdings Co. Ltd (Osaka, Japan) (represented by S. Malynicz QC, G. Messenger, Barrister, K. Gilbert and G. Lodge, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The GB Foods, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by E. Torner Lasalle, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2018 (Case R 111/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between The GB Foods and Nissin Foods Holdings.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | Nissin Foods Holdings Co. Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Nissin Foods Holdings Co. Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

| 3. | The GB Foods, SA shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The GB Foods, SA shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/55

---

Order of the General Court of 9 October 2019 — Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals)

(Case T-713/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ESIM Chemicals - Earlier national word mark ESKIM - Relative ground for refusal - Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed - Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2019/C 423/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Esim Chemicals GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: I. Rungg and I. Innerhofer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite SpA (Rome, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2018 (Case R 1267/2018-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite and Esim Chemicals.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Esim Chemicals GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Esim Chemicals GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/56

---

Order of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Algebris (UK) v Anchorage Capital Group v SRB

(Case T-2/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary policy - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms - Resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - No ex post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 423/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Algebris (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Anchorage Capital Group LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: T. Soames, lawyer, R. East, Solicitor, N. Chesaites and D. Mackersie, Barristers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: A. Valavanidou, I. Georgiopoulos and E. Muratori, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, F. Louis, V. Del Pozo Espinosa De Los Monteros, G. Barthet and C. Schwedler, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the ‘decision of the SRB, notified to the applicants on 18 December 2018, not to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español, SA’.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | Algebris (UK) Ltd and Anchorage Capital Group LLC shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Algebris (UK) Ltd and Anchorage Capital Group LLC shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/57

---

Order of the General Court of 25 September 2019 — Magnan v Commission

(Case T-99/19) (1)

(Action for failure to act, for damages and for annulment - Free movement of workers - Freedom to choose an occupation - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Alleged infringement of that agreement by Swiss laws and regulations governing the exercise of the profession of medical practitioner - Application for the adoption of measures against Switzerland and application for compensation for harm suffered - Reply of EEAS - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2019/C 423/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nathaniel Magnan (Aix-en-Provence, France) (represented by: J. Fayolle, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, J. Hottiaux and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application (i) under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to take measures against the Swiss Confederation following an alleged infringement of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6), signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, (ii) under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing to adopt measures against the Swiss Confederation, contained in the letter of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 20 December 2018 and (iii) under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm that the applicant has allegedly suffered since 2013 due to an infringement of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, as well as a penalty payment.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Nathaniel Magnan shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Nathaniel Magnan shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/57

---

Order of the General Court of 7 October 2019 — Garriga Polledo and Others v Parliament

(Case T-102/19 and T-132/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Institutional law - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Amendment of the additional voluntary pension scheme - Regulatory act - Implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 423/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants in Case T-102/19: Salvador Garriga Polledo (Madrid, Spain) and the 43 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Waisse, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-132/19: Richard Ashworth (Lingfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Waisse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, M. Ecker and Z. Nagy, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, p.8).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Cases T-102/19 and T-132/19 are joined for the purpose of the present order. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Cases T-102/19 and T-132/19 are joined for the purpose of the present order.

| 2. | The actions are dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

| 3. | Mr Salvador Garriga Polledo and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex and Mr Richard Ashworth shall bear their own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Salvador Garriga Polledo and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex and Mr Richard Ashworth shall bear their own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/58

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 13 September 2019 — Intering and Others v Commission

(Case T-525/19 R)

(Interim measures - Procedure for the award of a contract - Application for suspension of operation - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency)

(2019/C 423/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Intering Sh.p.k (Republic of Kosovo), Steinmüller Engineering GmbH (Gummersbach, Germany), Deling d.o.o. za proizvodnju, promet i usluge (Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina), ZM-Vikom d.o.o. za proizvodnju, konstruckcije i montažu (Šibenik, Croatia) (represented by: R. Spielhofen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu, J. Estrada de Solà and B. Bertelmann, Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of operation of the decision of the European Commission, communicated by letter of 30 July 2019 (AresD[2019] Na/vk), not to allow the applicants to submit a detailed offer in the procedure for the award of the contract EuropeAid/140043/DH/WKS/XK and the temporary suspension of the procedure for the award of the contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application for interim measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application for interim measures;

| 2. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Reserves the costs.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/59

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 2 October 2019 — FV v Council

(Case T-542/19 R)

(Interim relief - Civil service - Officials - Placing on leave and retirement in the interests of the service - Article 42c of the Staff Regulations - Application for a suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2019/C 423/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FV (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of the Council’s decision dated 3 May 2019 to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service in accordance with Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and having effect as of 31 December 2015.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/59

---

Action brought on 27 September 2019 – BP International v Commission

(Case T-662/19)

(2019/C 423/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BP International Ltd (Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Anderson, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims 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 applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

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 applicant;

| — | if the contested decision is not annulled in its entirety, order that, in determining the amount of aid to be recovered, losses, reliefs or exemptions which were available to the applicant at the time when it claimed the Group Financing Exemption (GFE), or which would have been available to the applicant at that time had it not claimed the GFE, should in either case be taken into account even if access to those losses, reliefs or exemptions is now time barred under UK law and irrespective of whether or not they are automatic; |
| --- | --- |

—

if the contested decision is not annulled in its entirety, order that, in determining the amount of aid to be recovered, losses, reliefs or exemptions which were available to the applicant at the time when it claimed the Group Financing Exemption (GFE), or which would have been available to the applicant at that time had it not claimed the GFE, should in either case be taken into account even if access to those losses, reliefs or exemptions is now time barred under UK law and irrespective of whether or not they are automatic;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s 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 defendant has failed to establish that the GFE constitutes an advantage.






  — | The applicant argues that the defendant has failed to show that there is an advantage in each case where the GFE has been claimed. Further, the applicant argues that it chose to claim the GFE exemption without considering whether its liability could have been lower if it had done an analysis under the significant people functions test (‘SPF test’) in section 371EB of Chapter 5 of Part 9A of the UK’s Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed to establish that the GFE constitutes an advantage.

—

The applicant argues that the defendant has failed to show that there is an advantage in each case where the GFE has been claimed. Further, the applicant argues that it chose to claim the GFE exemption without considering whether its liability could have been lower if it had done an analysis under the significant people functions test (‘SPF test’) in section 371EB of Chapter 5 of Part 9A of the UK’s Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that there was no intervention by the State or through State resources.






  — | The applicant argues that the defendant has failed to prove that claiming the GFE has certainly led to a reduction in the UK corporate tax liability. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that there was no intervention by the State or through State resources.

—

The applicant argues that the defendant has failed to prove that claiming the GFE has certainly led to a reduction in the UK corporate tax liability.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the GFE does not favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.






  — | The applicant argues that the defendant has erred by (i) defining the reference system too narrowly as the rules in Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 rather than the wider UK corporate tax system; (ii) failing to understand that Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is not a derogation from Chapter 5 thereof; and (iii) failing to recognise that, even if the said Chapter 9 is a derogation from that Chapter 5, it is justified by the nature or general scheme of the said Part 9A. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the GFE does not favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.

—

The applicant argues that the defendant has erred by (i) defining the reference system too narrowly as the rules in Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 rather than the wider UK corporate tax system; (ii) failing to understand that Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is not a derogation from Chapter 5 thereof; and (iii) failing to recognise that, even if the said Chapter 9 is a derogation from that Chapter 5, it is justified by the nature or general scheme of the said Part 9A.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the GFE does not affect trade between Member States.






  — | The applicant argues that the defendant has erred by concluding that the GFE is liable to influence choices made by multinational groups as to the location of their group finance functions and their head office within the EU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the GFE does not affect trade between Member States.

—

The applicant argues that the defendant has erred by concluding that the GFE is liable to influence choices made by multinational groups as to the location of their group finance functions and their head office within the EU.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the GFE does not distort or threaten to distort competition.






  — | The applicant argues that the defendant has failed to prove that claiming the GFE has certainly led to a reduction in the UK corporate tax liability. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the GFE does not distort or threaten to distort competition.

—

The applicant argues that the defendant has failed to prove that claiming the GFE has certainly led to a reduction in the UK corporate tax liability.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that recovery of the alleged aid would be contrary to general principles of EU law.






  — | The applicant argues that the SPF test lacks legal certainty, the UK had a margin of appreciation to address that uncertainty and that the defendant has breached its duty to carry out a complete analysis of all relevant factors. By ordering the recovery of aid, the defendant has acted contrary to Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (1) which prohibits the recovery of aid where recovery would be contrary to a general principle of EU law. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that recovery of the alleged aid would be contrary to general principles of EU law.

—

The applicant argues that the SPF test lacks legal certainty, the UK had a margin of appreciation to address that uncertainty and that the defendant has breached its duty to carry out a complete analysis of all relevant factors. By ordering the recovery of aid, the defendant has acted contrary to Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (1) which prohibits the recovery of aid where recovery would be contrary to a general principle of EU law.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the selective advantage would be eliminated, and no recovery would be required, if the UK were retrospectively to extend the GFE to upstream lending and third-party lending.






  — | The applicant argues that the defendant has failed to acknowledge that taking such action would eliminate any selective advantage (assuming for the moment that there is one) and in such case there would be no unlawful state aid to be recovered under EU law. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the selective advantage would be eliminated, and no recovery would be required, if the UK were retrospectively to extend the GFE to upstream lending and third-party lending.

—

The applicant argues that the defendant has failed to acknowledge that taking such action would eliminate any selective advantage (assuming for the moment that there is one) and in such case there would be no unlawful state aid to be recovered under EU law.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that, in determining the amount of the aid to be recovered, losses, reliefs or exemptions which were available to the applicant (whether by way of claim, election, or automatically) at the time when it claimed the GFE, or which would have been available at that time had it not claimed the GFE, should be taken into account even if access to those losses, reliefs or exemptions is now time barred under UK law.






  — | The applicant argues that that is the correct interpretation of recital 203 of the contested decision but, insofar as that is not the case, that decision is incorrect because failing to take such losses, reliefs or exemptions into account would lead to over-calculation of the amount of the aid which would introduce a distortion into the internal market. |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that, in determining the amount of the aid to be recovered, losses, reliefs or exemptions which were available to the applicant (whether by way of claim, election, or automatically) at the time when it claimed the GFE, or which would have been available at that time had it not claimed the GFE, should be taken into account even if access to those losses, reliefs or exemptions is now time barred under UK law.

—

The applicant argues that that is the correct interpretation of recital 203 of the contested decision but, insofar as that is not the case, that decision is incorrect because failing to take such losses, reliefs or exemptions into account would lead to over-calculation of the amount of the aid which would introduce a distortion into the internal market.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed to substantiate its reasons in relation to the qualifying resources exemption and the matched interest exemption and to carry out a complete analysis of all relevant factors.






  — | The applicant argues that the defendant has failed to distinguish between three separate exemptions under Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 which function independently and to understand that the qualifying resources exemption and the matched interest exemption are not proxies for the SPF test. Moreover, the existence of the matched interest exemption in the said Chapter 9 demonstrates that the defendant has erred by defining the reference system too narrowly as the rules in Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 rather than the wider UK corporate tax system. |
| --- | --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed to substantiate its reasons in relation to the qualifying resources exemption and the matched interest exemption and to carry out a complete analysis of all relevant factors.

—

The applicant argues that the defendant has failed to distinguish between three separate exemptions under Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 which function independently and to understand that the qualifying resources exemption and the matched interest exemption are not proxies for the SPF test. Moreover, the existence of the matched interest exemption in the said Chapter 9 demonstrates that the defendant has erred by defining the reference system too narrowly as the rules in Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 rather than the wider UK corporate tax system.

---

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

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/62

---

Action brought on 30 September 2019 – Irish Wind Farmers' Association and Others v Commission

(Case T-680/19)

(2019/C 423/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Irish Wind Farmers' Association Clg (Kilkenny, Ireland), Carrons Windfarm Ltd (Shanagolden, Ireland), Foyle Windfarm Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (Bunclody, Ireland) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission decision C(2019) 5257 final of 9 July 2019 - SA.44671 (2019/NN) – Ireland, concerning alleged illegal state aid granted to the fossil fuel sector in the form of reduced business rates; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission decision C(2019) 5257 final of 9 July 2019 - SA.44671 (2019/NN) – Ireland, concerning alleged illegal state aid granted to the fossil fuel sector in the form of reduced business rates;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, to the effect that the Commission failed to open the formal investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the Procedural Regulation, (1) notwithstanding doubts as to the existence of state aid, thereby depriving the applicants of their procedural rights.

---

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

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/62

---

Action brought on 8 October 2019 – ZU v EEAS

(Case T-689/19)

(2019/C 423/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority of 30 November 2018, rejecting the applicant’s requests of 27 July 2018 (i) for reimbursement of mission costs and (ii) for assistance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority of 30 November 2018, rejecting the applicant’s requests of 27 July 2018 (i) for reimbursement of mission costs and (ii) for assistance;

| — | order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 70 000, in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 70 000, in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

| — | 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 two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, in relation to the rejection of the request for reimbursement of mission costs, alleging manifest error of assessment, violation of the principle of good administration, failure to comply with the principle of proportionality, breach of Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and its derivative provisions as in Annex VII to those Regulations and the Guide to Missions (2008), and irrelevance of the request for the provision of the boarding cards as a pre-condition for the reimbursement of applicant’s mission costs. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, in relation to the rejection of the request for reimbursement of mission costs, alleging manifest error of assessment, violation of the principle of good administration, failure to comply with the principle of proportionality, breach of Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and its derivative provisions as in Annex VII to those Regulations and the Guide to Missions (2008), and irrelevance of the request for the provision of the boarding cards as a pre-condition for the reimbursement of applicant’s mission costs.

| 2. | Second plea in law, in relation to the rejection of the request for assistance, alleging error of assessment, breach of Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 1, 31(2), 41 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, in relation to the rejection of the request for assistance, alleging error of assessment, breach of Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 1, 31(2), 41 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and misuse of powers.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/63

---

Action brought on 18 October 2019 — Rübig v Parliament

(Case T-721/19)

(2019/C 423/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Paul Rübig (Wels, Austria) (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Waisse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible;

| — | where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions given by the European Parliament Legal Service on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, although perhaps not on those exact dates, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8); |
| --- | --- |

—

where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions given by the European Parliament Legal Service on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, although perhaps not on those exact dates, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8);

| — | annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the contested individual decision, notified to the applicant by the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the Directorate General for Finance of the European Parliament concerning the applicant’s entitlement to his additional (voluntary) pension in September 2019 in so far as that decision introduced a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable to the applicant as established by the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 referred to above; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the contested individual decision, notified to the applicant by the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the Directorate General for Finance of the European Parliament concerning the applicant’s entitlement to his additional (voluntary) pension in September 2019 in so far as that decision introduced a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable to the applicant as established by the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 referred to above;

| — | declare that the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 referred to above is inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU in so far as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and, specifically, in so far as it imposes a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable from 1 January 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 referred to above is inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU in so far as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and, specifically, in so far as it imposes a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable from 1 January 2019;

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

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Bureau has no competence ratione materiae.






  — | first, the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 (‘the decision of the Bureau’) infringed the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom, (OJ 2005 L 262, p.1) (‘the Statute’). The decision of the Bureau is in particular contrary to Article 27 of the Statute which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ must be maintained. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Bureau has no competence ratione materiae.

—

first, the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 (‘the decision of the Bureau’) infringed the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom, (OJ 2005 L 262, p.1) (‘the Statute’). The decision of the Bureau is in particular contrary to Article 27 of the Statute which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ must be maintained.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau introduces a tax by imposing a special levy amounting to 5 % of the nominal amount of the pension, whereas the introduction of a tax does not fall within the competence of the Bureau under Article 223(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau introduces a tax by imposing a special levy amounting to 5 % of the nominal amount of the pension, whereas the introduction of a tax does not fall within the competence of the Bureau under Article 223(2) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.






  — | first, the Bureau is criticised for having adopted the decision of the Bureau without complying with the rules imposed by Article 223 TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.

—

first, the Bureau is criticised for having adopted the decision of the Bureau without complying with the rules imposed by Article 223 TFEU.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau is insufficiently reasoned and thus infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau is insufficiently reasoned and thus infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and of the principle of legitimate expectations.






  — | first, the decision of the Bureau infringes acquired rights and future entitlements resulting from general legal principles and the Statute, which expressly requires that those rights and entitlements be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27). |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and of the principle of legitimate expectations.

—

first, the decision of the Bureau infringes acquired rights and future entitlements resulting from general legal principles and the Statute, which expressly requires that those rights and entitlements be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27).

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legitimate expectations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.






  — | first, the infringements of the applicant’s rights are disproportionate to the objectives pursued by the decision of the Bureau. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

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

—

first, the infringements of the applicant’s rights are disproportionate to the objectives pursued by the decision of the Bureau.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau must be declared inapplicable on the basis that it infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau must be declared inapplicable on the basis that it infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the absence of transitional measures.






  — | first, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it is unlawfully coupled with retroactive effect. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the absence of transitional measures.

—

first, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it is unlawfully coupled with retroactive effect.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it failed to lay down transitional measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it failed to lay down transitional measures.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/65

---

Action brought on 18 October 2019 — Grossetete v Parliament

(Case T-722/19)

(2019/C 423/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Françoise Grossetete (Saint-Étienne, France) (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Waisse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible;

| — | where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions given by the European Parliament Legal Service on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, although perhaps not on those exact dates, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8); |
| --- | --- |

—

where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions given by the European Parliament Legal Service on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, although perhaps not on those exact dates, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8);

| — | annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the contested individual decision, notified to the applicant by the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the Directorate General for Finance of the European Parliament concerning the applicant’s entitlement to her additional (voluntary) pension in September 2019 in so far as that decision introduced a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable to the applicant as established by the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 referred to above; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the contested individual decision, notified to the applicant by the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the Directorate General for Finance of the European Parliament concerning the applicant’s entitlement to her additional (voluntary) pension in September 2019 in so far as that decision introduced a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable to the applicant as established by the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 referred to above;

| — | declare that the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 referred to above is inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU in so far as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and, specifically, in so far as it imposes a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable from 1 January 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 referred to above is inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU in so far as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and, specifically, in so far as it imposes a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable from 1 January 2019;

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

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Bureau has no competence ratione materiae.






  — | first, the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 (‘the decision of the Bureau’) infringed the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom, (OJ 2005 L 262, p.1) (‘the Statute’). The decision of the Bureau is in particular contrary to Article 27 of the Statute which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ must be maintained. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Bureau has no competence ratione materiae.

—

first, the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 (‘the decision of the Bureau’) infringed the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom, (OJ 2005 L 262, p.1) (‘the Statute’). The decision of the Bureau is in particular contrary to Article 27 of the Statute which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ must be maintained.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau introduces a tax by imposing a special levy amounting to 5 % of the nominal amount of the pension, whereas the introduction of a tax does not fall within the competence of the Bureau under Article 223(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau introduces a tax by imposing a special levy amounting to 5 % of the nominal amount of the pension, whereas the introduction of a tax does not fall within the competence of the Bureau under Article 223(2) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.






  — | first, the Bureau is criticised for having adopted the decision of the Bureau without complying with the rules imposed by Article 223 TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.

—

first, the Bureau is criticised for having adopted the decision of the Bureau without complying with the rules imposed by Article 223 TFEU.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau is insufficiently reasoned and thus infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau is insufficiently reasoned and thus infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and of the principle of legitimate expectations.






  — | first, the decision of the Bureau infringes acquired rights and future entitlements resulting from general legal principles and the Statute, which expressly requires that those rights and entitlements be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27). |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and of the principle of legitimate expectations.

—

first, the decision of the Bureau infringes acquired rights and future entitlements resulting from general legal principles and the Statute, which expressly requires that those rights and entitlements be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27).

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legitimate expectations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.






  — | first, the infringements of the applicant’s rights are disproportionate to the objectives pursued by the decision of the Bureau. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

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

—

first, the infringements of the applicant’s rights are disproportionate to the objectives pursued by the decision of the Bureau.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau must be declared inapplicable on the basis that it infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau must be declared inapplicable on the basis that it infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the absence of transitional measures.






  — | first, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it is unlawfully coupled with retroactive effect. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the absence of transitional measures.

—

first, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it is unlawfully coupled with retroactive effect.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it failed to lay down transitional measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it failed to lay down transitional measures.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/66

---

Action brought on 18 October 2019 — Díaz de Mera García Consuegra v Parliament

(Case T-723/19)

(2019/C 423/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Agustin Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (Ávila, Spain) (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Waisse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible;

| — | where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions given by the European Parliament Legal Service on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, although perhaps not on those exact dates, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8); |
| --- | --- |

—

where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions given by the European Parliament Legal Service on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, although perhaps not on those exact dates, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8);

| — | annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the contested individual decision, notified to the applicant by the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the Directorate General for Finance of the European Parliament concerning the applicant’s entitlement to his additional (voluntary) pension in September 2019 in so far as that decision introduced a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable to the applicant as established by the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 referred to above; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the contested individual decision, notified to the applicant by the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the Directorate General for Finance of the European Parliament concerning the applicant’s entitlement to his additional (voluntary) pension in September 2019 in so far as that decision introduced a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable to the applicant as established by the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 referred to above;

| — | declare that the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 referred to above is inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU in so far as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and, specifically, in so far as it imposes a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable from 1 January 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 referred to above is inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU in so far as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and, specifically, in so far as it imposes a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable from 1 January 2019;

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

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Bureau has no competence ratione materiae.






  — | first, the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 (‘the decision of the Bureau’) infringed the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom, (OJ 2005 L 262, p.1) (‘the Statute’). The decision of the Bureau is in particular contrary to Article 27 of the Statute which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ must be maintained. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Bureau has no competence ratione materiae.

—

first, the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 (‘the decision of the Bureau’) infringed the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom, (OJ 2005 L 262, p.1) (‘the Statute’). The decision of the Bureau is in particular contrary to Article 27 of the Statute which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ must be maintained.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau introduces a tax by imposing a special levy amounting to 5 % of the nominal amount of the pension, whereas the introduction of a tax does not fall within the competence of the Bureau under Article 223(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau introduces a tax by imposing a special levy amounting to 5 % of the nominal amount of the pension, whereas the introduction of a tax does not fall within the competence of the Bureau under Article 223(2) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.






  — | first, the Bureau is criticised for having adopted the decision of the Bureau without complying with the rules imposed by Article 223 TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.

—

first, the Bureau is criticised for having adopted the decision of the Bureau without complying with the rules imposed by Article 223 TFEU.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau is insufficiently reasoned and thus infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau is insufficiently reasoned and thus infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and of the principle of legitimate expectations.






  — | first, the decision of the Bureau infringes acquired rights and future entitlements resulting from general legal principles and the Statute, which expressly requires that those rights and entitlements be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27). |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and of the principle of legitimate expectations.

—

first, the decision of the Bureau infringes acquired rights and future entitlements resulting from general legal principles and the Statute, which expressly requires that those rights and entitlements be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27).

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legitimate expectations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.






  — | first, the infringements of the applicant’s rights are disproportionate to the objectives pursued by the decision of the Bureau. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

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

—

first, the infringements of the applicant’s rights are disproportionate to the objectives pursued by the decision of the Bureau.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau must be declared inapplicable on the basis that it infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau must be declared inapplicable on the basis that it infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the absence of transitional measures.






  — | first, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it is unlawfully coupled with retroactive effect. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the absence of transitional measures.

—

first, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it is unlawfully coupled with retroactive effect.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it failed to lay down transitional measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it failed to lay down transitional measures.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/68

---

Action brought on 18 October 2019 — Ayuso v Parliament

(Case T-724/19)

(2019/C 423/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pilar Ayuso (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Waisse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible;

| — | where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions given by the European Parliament Legal Service on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, although perhaps not on those exact dates, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8); |
| --- | --- |

—

where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions given by the European Parliament Legal Service on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, although perhaps not on those exact dates, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8);

| — | annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the contested individual decision, notified to the applicant by the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the Directorate General for Finance of the European Parliament concerning the applicant’s entitlement to her additional (voluntary) pension in September 2019 in so far as that decision introduced a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable to the applicant as established by the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 referred to above; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the contested individual decision, notified to the applicant by the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the Directorate General for Finance of the European Parliament concerning the applicant’s entitlement to her additional (voluntary) pension in September 2019 in so far as that decision introduced a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable to the applicant as established by the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 referred to above;

| — | declare that the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 referred to above is inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU in so far as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and, specifically, in so far as it imposes a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable from 1 January 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 referred to above is inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU in so far as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and, specifically, in so far as it imposes a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable from 1 January 2019;

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

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Bureau has no competence ratione materiae.






  — | first, the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 (‘the decision of the Bureau’) infringed the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom, (OJ 2005 L 262, p.1) (‘the Statute’). The decision of the Bureau is in particular contrary to Article 27 of the Statute which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ must be maintained. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Bureau has no competence ratione materiae.

—

first, the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 (‘the decision of the Bureau’) infringed the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom, (OJ 2005 L 262, p.1) (‘the Statute’). The decision of the Bureau is in particular contrary to Article 27 of the Statute which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ must be maintained.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau introduces a tax by imposing a special levy amounting to 5 % of the nominal amount of the pension, whereas the introduction of a tax does not fall within the competence of the Bureau under Article 223(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau introduces a tax by imposing a special levy amounting to 5 % of the nominal amount of the pension, whereas the introduction of a tax does not fall within the competence of the Bureau under Article 223(2) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.






  — | first, the Bureau is criticised for having adopted the decision of the Bureau without complying with the rules imposed by Article 223 TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.

—

first, the Bureau is criticised for having adopted the decision of the Bureau without complying with the rules imposed by Article 223 TFEU.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau is insufficiently reasoned and thus infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau is insufficiently reasoned and thus infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and of the principle of legitimate expectations.






  — | first, the decision of the Bureau infringes acquired rights and future entitlements resulting from general legal principles and the Statute, which expressly requires that those rights and entitlements be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27). |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and of the principle of legitimate expectations.

—

first, the decision of the Bureau infringes acquired rights and future entitlements resulting from general legal principles and the Statute, which expressly requires that those rights and entitlements be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27).

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legitimate expectations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.






  — | first, the infringements of the applicant’s rights are disproportionate to the objectives pursued by the decision of the Bureau. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

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

—

first, the infringements of the applicant’s rights are disproportionate to the objectives pursued by the decision of the Bureau.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau must be declared inapplicable on the basis that it infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau must be declared inapplicable on the basis that it infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the absence of transitional measures.






  — | first, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it is unlawfully coupled with retroactive effect. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the absence of transitional measures.

—

first, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it is unlawfully coupled with retroactive effect.

| — | secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it failed to lay down transitional measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it failed to lay down transitional measures.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/70

---

Action brought on 18 October 2019 — de Grandes Pascual v Parliament

(Case T-725/19)

(2019/C 423/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Luis de Grandes Pascual (Guadalajara, Spain) (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Waisse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare and rule that,

| — | the present action is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

the present action is admissible;

| — | so far as necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the present case, the European Parliament is ordered to produce the opinions produced by the European Parliament’s legal service, which were apparently issued on 16 July 2018 and on 3 December 2018, without prejudice as to the precise date, but in any event were issued before the adoption of the decision of the Parliament’s Bureau of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8); |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the present case, the European Parliament is ordered to produce the opinions produced by the European Parliament’s legal service, which were apparently issued on 16 July 2018 and on 3 December 2018, without prejudice as to the precise date, but in any event were issued before the adoption of the decision of the Parliament’s Bureau of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8);

| — | the contested individual decision, of which the applicant was notified by the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the European Parliament’s Directorate General for Finance, concerning the applicant’s rights to his Additional (Voluntary) Pension Scheme during the month of September 2019 is annulled on the basis of Article 263 TFEU inasmuch as that decision implemented the special levy of 5 % on the nominal amount of the Additional (Voluntary) Pension payable to the applicant as introduced by the Bureau’s abovementioned decision of 10 December 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

the contested individual decision, of which the applicant was notified by the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the European Parliament’s Directorate General for Finance, concerning the applicant’s rights to his Additional (Voluntary) Pension Scheme during the month of September 2019 is annulled on the basis of Article 263 TFEU inasmuch as that decision implemented the special levy of 5 % on the nominal amount of the Additional (Voluntary) Pension payable to the applicant as introduced by the Bureau’s abovementioned decision of 10 December 2018;

| — | the abovementioned decision of the Parliament’s Bureau of 10 December 2018 is declared inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU inasmuch as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and, more specifically, inasmuch as it introduces a special levy of 5 % on the nominal amount of Additional (Voluntary) Pensions payable as of 1 January 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

the abovementioned decision of the Parliament’s Bureau of 10 December 2018 is declared inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU inasmuch as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and, more specifically, inasmuch as it introduces a special levy of 5 % on the nominal amount of Additional (Voluntary) Pensions payable as of 1 January 2019;

| — | the Parliament is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Parliament is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Bureau lacked competence ratione materiae.






  — | First, the Bureau’s decision of 10 December 2018 (‘the Bureau’s decision’) was adopted in breach of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by the decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom (OJ 2005 L 262, p. 1) (‘the Statute’). The Bureau’s decision infringes, inter alia, Article 27 of the Statute, which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ be maintained. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Bureau lacked competence ratione materiae.

—

First, the Bureau’s decision of 10 December 2018 (‘the Bureau’s decision’) was adopted in breach of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by the decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom (OJ 2005 L 262, p. 1) (‘the Statute’). The Bureau’s decision infringes, inter alia, Article 27 of the Statute, which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ be maintained.

| — | Secondly, the Bureau’s decision creates a tax by introducing a special levy of 5 % on the nominal amount of the pension even though the creation of a tax does not fall within the scope of the competence of the Bureau under Article 223(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, the Bureau’s decision creates a tax by introducing a special levy of 5 % on the nominal amount of the pension even though the creation of a tax does not fall within the scope of the competence of the Bureau under Article 223(2) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.






  — | First, the Bureau is alleged to have adopted its decision without complying with the rules imposed under Article 223 TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.

—

First, the Bureau is alleged to have adopted its decision without complying with the rules imposed under Article 223 TFEU.

| — | Secondly, insufficient reasons are stated for the Bureau’s decision and it is thus in breach of the obligation to state reasons provided for in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and in Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, insufficient reasons are stated for the Bureau’s decision and it is thus in breach of the obligation to state reasons provided for in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and in Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and a failure to comply with the principle of legitimate expectations.






  — | First, the Bureau’s decision infringes the acquired rights and future entitlements resulting both from general principles of law and from the Statute, which expressly requires that those rights and entitlements be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27). |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and a failure to comply with the principle of legitimate expectations.

—

First, the Bureau’s decision infringes the acquired rights and future entitlements resulting both from general principles of law and from the Statute, which expressly requires that those rights and entitlements be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27).

| — | Secondly, the Bureau’s decision fails to comply with the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, the Bureau’s decision fails to comply with the principle of legitimate expectations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the principle of proportionality and with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.






  — | First, the interferences with the applicant’s rights are disproportionate in relation to the objectives pursued by the Bureau’s decision. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the principle of proportionality and with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

—

First, the interferences with the applicant’s rights are disproportionate in relation to the objectives pursued by the Bureau’s decision.

| — | Secondly, the Bureau’s decision must be declared inapplicable on the grounds that it fails to comply with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, the Bureau’s decision must be declared inapplicable on the grounds that it fails to comply with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the principle of legal certainty and as to a lack of transitional measures.






  — | First, the Bureau’s decision fails to comply with the principle of legal certainty inasmuch as it is unlawfully coupled with retroactive effects. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the principle of legal certainty and as to a lack of transitional measures.

—

First, the Bureau’s decision fails to comply with the principle of legal certainty inasmuch as it is unlawfully coupled with retroactive effects.

| — | Secondly, the Bureau’s decision fails to comply with the principle of legal certainty inasmuch as it failed to provide for transitional measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, the Bureau’s decision fails to comply with the principle of legal certainty inasmuch as it failed to provide for transitional measures.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/71

---

Action brought on 30 October 2019 — Dinamo v EUIPO (Favorit)

(Case T-729/19)

(2019/C 423/84)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dinamo GmbH (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union word mark Favorit — Application for registration No 17 924 051

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 985/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the appeal;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/72

---

Order of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — VL and Others v Parliament

(Case T-183/18) (1)

(2019/C 423/85)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/72

---

Order of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — YP v Commission

(Case T-562/18) (1)

(2019/C 423/86)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/73

---

Order of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — YP v Commission

(Case T-563/18) (1)

(2019/C 423/87)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.

---

Corrigenda

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/74

---

Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-642/19

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 383 of 11 November 2019
  )

(2019/C 423/88)

The notice concerning Case T-642/19, JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium v Commission should read as follows:

‘Action brought on 25 September 2019 — JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium v Commission

(Case T-642/19)

(2019/C 423/88)

Langue de procédure: le français

Parties

Applicant: JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Winckler and G. Babin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Article 1 of the contested decision, in so far as it finds there to be incompatible State aid in favour of JCDecaux in the performance of the 1984 contract, and Articles 2 and 4, in so far as they order the recovery of that aid from JCDecaux by the Belgian State; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1 of the contested decision, in so far as it finds there to be incompatible State aid in favour of JCDecaux in the performance of the 1984 contract, and Articles 2 and 4, in so far as they order the recovery of that aid from JCDecaux by the Belgian State;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision C(2019) 4466 final of 24 June 2019 on State aid SA.33078 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium in favour of JC Decaux Belgium Publicité, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and error of law committed by the Commission in finding that the operation by the applicant of certain advertising facilities covered by the contract of 16 July 1984 beyond their expiry date constitutes an advantage.






  — | The Commission wrongly found there to be an economic advantage despite the compensation mechanism operated by the City of Brussels pursuant to its obligation to safeguard the economic balance of the contract. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and error of law committed by the Commission in finding that the operation by the applicant of certain advertising facilities covered by the contract of 16 July 1984 beyond their expiry date constitutes an advantage.

—

The Commission wrongly found there to be an economic advantage despite the compensation mechanism operated by the City of Brussels pursuant to its obligation to safeguard the economic balance of the contract.

| — | The Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and erred in law by finding that the applicant benefited from a saving in terms of rents and tax, which constituted an advantage. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and erred in law by finding that the applicant benefited from a saving in terms of rents and tax, which constituted an advantage.

| — | The contracts of 16 July 1984 and 14 October 1999 are not ‘purely commercial’, and the Altmark criteria were satisfied in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

—

The contracts of 16 July 1984 and 14 October 1999 are not ‘purely commercial’, and the Altmark criteria were satisfied in the present case.

| 2. | Second plea in law, in the alternative, claiming that the hypothetical State aid is compatible with the internal market, pursuant to the Communication from the Commission on the framework for SGEIs and the 2012 Decision on services of general economic interest. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, in the alternative, claiming that the hypothetical State aid is compatible with the internal market, pursuant to the Communication from the Commission on the framework for SGEIs and the 2012 Decision on services of general economic interest.

| 3. | Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging infringement by the Commission of its obligation to state reasons in so far as concerns the assessment of the amount to be recovered.






  — | The Commission did not deal adequately with the evidence relied on by the parties, prejudged the amount of aid to be recovered in its press release, and infringed its own internal rules of procedure. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging infringement by the Commission of its obligation to state reasons in so far as concerns the assessment of the amount to be recovered.

—

The Commission did not deal adequately with the evidence relied on by the parties, prejudged the amount of aid to be recovered in its press release, and infringed its own internal rules of procedure.

| — | It was impossible to quantify the amount of a hypothetical aid, thereby creating an obstacle to the recovery thereof. |
| --- | --- |

—

It was impossible to quantify the amount of a hypothetical aid, thereby creating an obstacle to the recovery thereof.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that the State aid found in the contested decision is time-barred.’ |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that the State aid found in the contested decision is time-barred.’

---