# Official Journal C 381/22 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 381 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6122 October 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 381

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6122 October 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2018/C 381/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2018/C 381/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2018/C 381/02 | Case C-256/18 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2018 by Massimo Campailla against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 23 January 2018 in Case T-759/16, Campailla v European Union | 2 |
| 2018/C 381/03 | Case C-452/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Teruel (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2018 — XZ v Ibercaja Banco, S.A. | 2 |
| 2018/C 381/04 | Case C-453/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia Vigo (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2018 — Bondora AS v Carlos V. C. | 3 |
| 2018/C 381/05 | Case C-460/18 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by HK against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 May 2018 in Case T-574/16 HK v Commission | 4 |
| 2018/C 381/06 | Case C-468/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Constanța (Romania) lodged on 18 July 2018 — R v P | 5 |
| 2018/C 381/07 | Case C-480/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 23 July 2018 — AS PrivatBank | 5 |
| 2018/C 381/08 | Case C-489/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 July 2018 — Farmland Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter | 6 |
| 2018/C 381/09 | Case C-492/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v TC | 7 |
| 2018/C 381/10 | Case C-494/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Bondora AS v XY | 8 |
| 2018/C 381/11 | Case C-496/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 30 July 2018 — HUNGEOD Közlekedésfejlesztési, Földmérési, Út- és Vasúttervezési Kft. and Others v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság | 9 |
| 2018/C 381/12 | Case C-497/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 30 July 2018 — Budapesti Közlekedési Zrt. v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság | 10 |
| 2018/C 381/13 | Case C-499/18 P: Appeal brought on 27 July 2018 by Bayer CropScience AG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 May 2018 in Case T-429/13: Bayer CropScience AG v European Commission | 12 |
| 2018/C 381/14 | Case C-500/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) lodged on 30 July 2018 — AU v Reliantco Investments LTD, Reliantco Investments LTD Limassol Sucursala București | 13 |
| 2018/C 381/15 | Case C-503/18 P: Appeal brought on 26 July 2018 by Inge Barnett against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-23/17 Barnett v European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) | 14 |
| 2018/C 381/16 | Case C-525/18 P: Appeal brought on 9 August 2018 by Marion Le Pen against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2018 in Case T-86/17, Le Pen v European Parliament | 15 |
| 2018/C 381/17 | Case C-526/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg (Sweden) lodged on 13 August 2018 — AA v Migrationsverket | 16 |
| 2018/C 381/18 | Case C-549/18: Action brought on 27 August 2018 — European Commission v Romania | 17 |
| 2018/C 381/19 | Case C-556/18: Action brought on 30 August 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain | 18 |
| | General Court |
| 2018/C 381/20 | Case T-14/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Apimab Laboratoires and Others v Commission (Consumer protection — Setting of maximum levels for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in food supplements — Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 — Risk analysis — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Principle of non-discrimination) | 19 |
| 2018/C 381/21 | Case T-613/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — PH v Commission (Civil Service — Recruitment — Open competition — Notice of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — Decision to exclude the candidate from the competition — Family connection to a member of the selection board — Equal treatment) | 19 |
| 2018/C 381/22 | Case T-654/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission (Dumping — Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China — Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) — Rejection of a request for a partial interim review, limited to dumping aspects, of the definitive anti-dumping duty established by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 — Lasting change in circumstances — Sampling — Individual examination — No cooperation in the investigation that led to the adoption of the definitive measures) | 20 |
| 2018/C 381/23 | Case T-788/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — De Geoffroy and Others v Parliament. (Civil service — Officials — Leave — Adoption of the Parliament’s new Guidelines on leave management — Individual decisions taken under the new guidelines in the interpretation services — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Interests of the service — Plea of illegality) | 21 |
| 2018/C 381/24 | Case T-905/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Chefaro Ireland v EUIPO — Laboratoires M&L (NUIT PRECIEUSE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark NUIT PRECIEUSE — Earlier national word mark EAU PRECIEUSE — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 21 |
| 2018/C 381/25 | Case T-55/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Healy v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Recruitment — Internal competition — Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants — Eligibility condition relating to length of service within the Commission — Non-admission to the assessment tests in a competition) | 22 |
| 2018/C 381/26 | Case T-112/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Pelikan v EUIPO — NBA Properties (NEW ORLEANS PELICANS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark NEW ORLEANS PELICANS — Earlier EU word marks and earlier national figurative mark Pelikan — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 23 |
| 2018/C 381/27 | Case T-584/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 –Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz — Earlier national work marks PRIMA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 23 |
| 2018/C 381/28 | Case T-180/14: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — Front Polisario v Council (Action for annulment — Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco — Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities provided for in that agreement — Act concluding the agreement — Applicability of the agreement and protocol to the territory of Western Sahara and the waters adjacent thereto — Lack of standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 24 |
| 2018/C 381/29 | Case T-101/17: Order of the General Court of 27 July 2018 — Apple Distribution International v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid planned by Germany to fund film production and distribution — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — No individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 25 |
| 2018/C 381/30 | Case T-251/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 August 2018 — IFSUA v Council (Interim measures — Fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks — Measures on European seabass fisheries — Ban on catches in recreational fisheries — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 26 |
| 2018/C 381/31 | Case T-417/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2018 — CdT v EUIPO (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Translation services required for the functioning of EUIPO — Use of external contractors — Application for interim measures — No urgency) | 26 |
| 2018/C 381/32 | Case T-485/18: Action brought on 9 August 2018 — Compañia de Tranvías de la Coruña v Commission | 27 |
| 2018/C 381/33 | Case T-486/18: Action brought on 15 August 2018 — Danske Slagtermestre v European Commission | 28 |
| 2018/C 381/34 | Case T-494/18: Action brought on 17 August 2018 — PO v EEAS | 29 |
| 2018/C 381/35 | Case T-527/18: Action brought on 6 September 2018 — K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum) | 30 |
| 2018/C 381/36 | Case T-715/15: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY GEEK SQUAD) | 31 |
| 2018/C 381/37 | Case T-773/15: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY) | 31 |
| 2018/C 381/38 | Case T-72/16: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile) | 31 |
| 2018/C 381/39 | Case T-288/17: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Sky v EUIPO — Parrot Drones (Parrot SKYCONTROLLER) | 31 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2018/C 381/02

Case C-256/18 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2018 by Massimo Campailla against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 23 January 2018 in Case T-759/16, Campailla v European Union

2

2018/C 381/03

Case C-452/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Teruel (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2018 — XZ v Ibercaja Banco, S.A.

2

2018/C 381/04

Case C-453/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia Vigo (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2018 — Bondora AS v Carlos V. C.

3

2018/C 381/05

Case C-460/18 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by HK against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 May 2018 in Case T-574/16 HK v Commission

4

2018/C 381/06

Case C-468/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Constanța (Romania) lodged on 18 July 2018 — R v P

5

2018/C 381/07

Case C-480/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 23 July 2018 — AS PrivatBank

5

2018/C 381/08

Case C-489/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 July 2018 — Farmland Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter

6

2018/C 381/09

Case C-492/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v TC

7

2018/C 381/10

Case C-494/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Bondora AS v XY

8

2018/C 381/11

Case C-496/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 30 July 2018 — HUNGEOD Közlekedésfejlesztési, Földmérési, Út- és Vasúttervezési Kft. and Others v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

9

2018/C 381/12

Case C-497/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 30 July 2018 — Budapesti Közlekedési Zrt. v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

10

2018/C 381/13

Case C-499/18 P: Appeal brought on 27 July 2018 by Bayer CropScience AG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 May 2018 in Case T-429/13: Bayer CropScience AG v European Commission

12

2018/C 381/14

Case C-500/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) lodged on 30 July 2018 — AU v Reliantco Investments LTD, Reliantco Investments LTD Limassol Sucursala București

13

2018/C 381/15

Case C-503/18 P: Appeal brought on 26 July 2018 by Inge Barnett against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-23/17 Barnett v European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

14

2018/C 381/16

Case C-525/18 P: Appeal brought on 9 August 2018 by Marion Le Pen against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2018 in Case T-86/17, Le Pen v European Parliament

Le Pen

European Parliament

15

2018/C 381/17

Case C-526/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg (Sweden) lodged on 13 August 2018 — AA v Migrationsverket

16

2018/C 381/18

Case C-549/18: Action brought on 27 August 2018 — European Commission v Romania

17

2018/C 381/19

Case C-556/18: Action brought on 30 August 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

18

General Court

2018/C 381/20

Case T-14/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Apimab Laboratoires and Others v Commission (Consumer protection — Setting of maximum levels for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in food supplements — Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 — Risk analysis — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Principle of non-discrimination)

19

2018/C 381/21

Case T-613/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — PH v Commission (Civil Service — Recruitment — Open competition — Notice of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — Decision to exclude the candidate from the competition — Family connection to a member of the selection board — Equal treatment)

19

2018/C 381/22

Case T-654/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission (Dumping — Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China — Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) — Rejection of a request for a partial interim review, limited to dumping aspects, of the definitive anti-dumping duty established by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 — Lasting change in circumstances — Sampling — Individual examination — No cooperation in the investigation that led to the adoption of the definitive measures)

20

2018/C 381/23

Case T-788/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — De Geoffroy and Others v Parliament. (Civil service — Officials — Leave — Adoption of the Parliament’s new Guidelines on leave management — Individual decisions taken under the new guidelines in the interpretation services — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Interests of the service — Plea of illegality)

21

2018/C 381/24

Case T-905/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Chefaro Ireland v EUIPO — Laboratoires M&L (NUIT PRECIEUSE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark NUIT PRECIEUSE — Earlier national word mark EAU PRECIEUSE — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

21

2018/C 381/25

Case T-55/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Healy v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Recruitment — Internal competition — Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants — Eligibility condition relating to length of service within the Commission — Non-admission to the assessment tests in a competition)

22

2018/C 381/26

Case T-112/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Pelikan v EUIPO — NBA Properties (NEW ORLEANS PELICANS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark NEW ORLEANS PELICANS — Earlier EU word marks and earlier national figurative mark Pelikan — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

23

2018/C 381/27

Case T-584/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 –Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz — Earlier national work marks PRIMA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

23

2018/C 381/28

Case T-180/14: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — Front Polisario v Council (Action for annulment — Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco — Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities provided for in that agreement — Act concluding the agreement — Applicability of the agreement and protocol to the territory of Western Sahara and the waters adjacent thereto — Lack of standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

24

2018/C 381/29

Case T-101/17: Order of the General Court of 27 July 2018 — Apple Distribution International v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid planned by Germany to fund film production and distribution — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

25

2018/C 381/30

Case T-251/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 August 2018 — IFSUA v Council (Interim measures — Fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks — Measures on European seabass fisheries — Ban on catches in recreational fisheries — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

26

2018/C 381/31

Case T-417/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2018 — CdT v EUIPO (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Translation services required for the functioning of EUIPO — Use of external contractors — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

26

2018/C 381/32

Case T-485/18: Action brought on 9 August 2018 — Compañia de Tranvías de la Coruña v Commission

27

2018/C 381/33

Case T-486/18: Action brought on 15 August 2018 — Danske Slagtermestre v European Commission

28

2018/C 381/34

Case T-494/18: Action brought on 17 August 2018 — PO v EEAS

29

2018/C 381/35

Case T-527/18: Action brought on 6 September 2018 — K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum)

30

2018/C 381/36

Case T-715/15: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY GEEK SQUAD)

31

2018/C 381/37

Case T-773/15: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY)

31

2018/C 381/38

Case T-72/16: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)

31

2018/C 381/39

Case T-288/17: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Sky v EUIPO — Parrot Drones (Parrot SKYCONTROLLER)

31

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/1

---

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

(2018/C 381/01)

Last publication

OJ C 373, 15.10.2018

Past publications

OJ C 364, 8.10.2018

OJ C 352, 1.10.2018

OJ C 341, 24.9.2018

OJ C 328, 17.9.2018

OJ C 319, 10.9.2018

OJ C 311, 3.9.2018

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/2

---

Appeal brought on 9 April 2018 by Massimo Campailla against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 23 January 2018 in Case T-759/16, Campailla v European Union

(Case C-256/18 P)

(2018/C 381/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Massimo Campailla (represented by: F. Rollinger, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union

By order of 7 August 2018, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being, in part, manifestly unfounded and, in part, manifestly ineffective.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Teruel (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2018 — XZ v Ibercaja Banco, S.A.

(Case C-452/18)

(2018/C 381/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Teruel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XZ

Defendant: Ibercaja Banco, S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the principle that void contractual terms are not binding (Article 6 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993) (1) also extend to subsequent contracts and legal arrangements concerning such terms, such as a novation contract?
  And, given that absolute nullity means that the said term is deemed never to have existed in the legal/financial life of the contract, can it be concluded that subsequent legal transactions and their effect on the term in question — that is, the novation contract — also disappear from legal reality and must be deemed non-existent and without effect? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the principle that void contractual terms are not binding (Article 6 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993) (1) also extend to subsequent contracts and legal arrangements concerning such terms, such as a novation contract?

And, given that absolute nullity means that the said term is deemed never to have existed in the legal/financial life of the contract, can it be concluded that subsequent legal transactions and their effect on the term in question — that is, the novation contract — also disappear from legal reality and must be deemed non-existent and without effect?

| 2. | Can documents which amend, or make a settlement in respect of, non-negotiated terms and may not satisfy the fairness and transparency tests be considered to be in the nature of general contractual terms for the purposes of Article 3 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 and be subject to the same grounds for invalidity that apply to the original documents that are the subject of the novation or settlement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can documents which amend, or make a settlement in respect of, non-negotiated terms and may not satisfy the fairness and transparency tests be considered to be in the nature of general contractual terms for the purposes of Article 3 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 and be subject to the same grounds for invalidity that apply to the original documents that are the subject of the novation or settlement?

| 3. | Must the waiver of rights of action contained in a novation contract also be void, in so far as the contracts signed by customers did not inform them either of the fact that a contractual term was void or of the money or financial sum they were entitled to receive in repayment of interest paid as a result of the initial imposition of the ‘floor clauses’?
  It is noted that customers thus sign a waiver agreeing not to sue, without having been told by the bank what rights they are waiving or how much money they are giving up. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the waiver of rights of action contained in a novation contract also be void, in so far as the contracts signed by customers did not inform them either of the fact that a contractual term was void or of the money or financial sum they were entitled to receive in repayment of interest paid as a result of the initial imposition of the ‘floor clauses’?

It is noted that customers thus sign a waiver agreeing not to sue, without having been told by the bank what rights they are waiving or how much money they are giving up.

| 4. | When the amending novation contract is examined in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice and Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Directive [93/13], is the new floor clause included vitiated once again by a lack of transparency, as the bank has again failed to comply with the transparency criteria laid down in the [judgment of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain)] of 9 May 2013 and failed to inform the customer of the true financial cost of the said term in his mortgage, which would make him aware of the interest rate (and the resulting amount) that he would have to pay if the new floor clause were to be applied, and the interest rate (and the resulting amount) that he would have to pay if no floor clause were applied and the interest rate agreed in the mortgage were applied with no lower limit?
  In other words, when the financial institution imposed the document referred to as a novation in respect of ‘floor clauses’, should it have satisfied the transparency tests described in Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Directive [93/13] and informed the consumer of the amount of money lost as a result of applying the ‘floor clauses’, and of the interest rate that would be applicable in the absence of those clauses, and, given that the bank did not do so, are those documents also vitiated by a ground of nullity? |
| --- | --- |

4.

When the amending novation contract is examined in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice and Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Directive [93/13], is the new floor clause included vitiated once again by a lack of transparency, as the bank has again failed to comply with the transparency criteria laid down in the [judgment of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain)] of 9 May 2013 and failed to inform the customer of the true financial cost of the said term in his mortgage, which would make him aware of the interest rate (and the resulting amount) that he would have to pay if the new floor clause were to be applied, and the interest rate (and the resulting amount) that he would have to pay if no floor clause were applied and the interest rate agreed in the mortgage were applied with no lower limit?

In other words, when the financial institution imposed the document referred to as a novation in respect of ‘floor clauses’, should it have satisfied the transparency tests described in Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Directive [93/13] and informed the consumer of the amount of money lost as a result of applying the ‘floor clauses’, and of the interest rate that would be applicable in the absence of those clauses, and, given that the bank did not do so, are those documents also vitiated by a ground of nullity?

| 5. | In view of their content, can the terms concerning legal action included in the general terms and conditions of the amending novation contract be considered unfair under Article 3(1) [of Directive 93/13] in conjunction with the Annex listing unfair terms, and specifically with paragraph (q) of the Annex (terms shall be regarded as unfair where they exclude or hinder the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy), given that they restrict the right of consumers to exercise rights that may arise or become evident after the contract has been signed, as was the case with the possibility of claiming full repayment of the interest paid (in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2016)? (2) |
| --- | --- |

5.

In view of their content, can the terms concerning legal action included in the general terms and conditions of the amending novation contract be considered unfair under Article 3(1) [of Directive 93/13] in conjunction with the Annex listing unfair terms, and specifically with paragraph (q) of the Annex (terms shall be regarded as unfair where they exclude or hinder the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy), given that they restrict the right of consumers to exercise rights that may arise or become evident after the contract has been signed, as was the case with the possibility of claiming full repayment of the interest paid (in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2016)? (2)

---

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

(2)  Judgment of 21 December 2016, Gutiérrez Naranjo and Others, C-154/15, C-307/15 and C-308/15, EU:C:2016:980.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia Vigo (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2018 — Bondora AS v Carlos V. C.

(Case C-453/18)

(2018/C 381/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia Vigo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bondora AS

Defendant: Carlos V. C.

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) and the case-law interpreting that directive, to be construed as meaning that that article of the directive precludes a national provision, like [point 2 of] the 23rd final provision of Ley 1/2000, de 7 de enero, de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law 1/2000 of 7 January on Civil Procedure), which provides that it is not necessary to submit documents with the application for a European order for payment and that, where documents are submitted, they will be ruled inadmissible? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) and the case-law interpreting that directive, to be construed as meaning that that article of the directive precludes a national provision, like [point 2 of] the 23rd final provision of Ley 1/2000, de 7 de enero, de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law 1/2000 of 7 January on Civil Procedure), which provides that it is not necessary to submit documents with the application for a European order for payment and that, where documents are submitted, they will be ruled inadmissible?

| 2. | Is Article 7(2)(e) of Regulation No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 (2) to be construed as meaning that that provision does not preclude a creditor institution from being required to submit documents substantiating its claim based on a consumer loan entered into between a seller or a supplier and a consumer, where the court considers it essential to examine the documents in order to determine whether there are unfair terms in the contract between the parties, thereby complying with the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the case-law interpreting that directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 7(2)(e) of Regulation No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 (2) to be construed as meaning that that provision does not preclude a creditor institution from being required to submit documents substantiating its claim based on a consumer loan entered into between a seller or a supplier and a consumer, where the court considers it essential to examine the documents in order to determine whether there are unfair terms in the contract between the parties, thereby complying with the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the case-law interpreting that directive?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1).

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/4

---

Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by HK against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 May 2018 in Case T-574/16 HK v Commission

(Case C-460/18 P)

(2018/C 381/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HK (represented by: A. Champetier, S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that the appeal is admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the appeal is admissible and well founded;

| — | Annul the judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 (Case T-574/16); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 (Case T-574/16);

| — | Dispose of the case itself by upholding the claims made at first instance by the appellant, including the claim that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs; or in the alternative |
| --- | --- |

—

Dispose of the case itself by upholding the claims made at first instance by the appellant, including the claim that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs; or in the alternative

| — | Refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling and, in those circumstances, make an order as to the costs of the appeal in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling and, in those circumstances, make an order as to the costs of the appeal in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds. The first ground is based on infringement of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, and the ambiguous, incoherent and contradictory nature of the statement of reasons. The second ground is based on infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and the inadequate statement of reasons.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Constanța (Romania) lodged on 18 July 2018 — R v P

(Case C-468/18)

(2018/C 381/06)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: R

Defendant: P

Questions referred

| 1. | In the context of an action before the courts of a Member State which comprises three heads of claim concerning (i) the divorce of the parents of a minor child, (ii) parental responsibility for that minor child and (iii) maintenance obligations with regard to that minor child, may Article 3(a) and (d) and Article 5 of Regulation No 4/2009 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the court seised of the divorce petition, being also a court for the place where the defendant is habitually resident and the court before which the defendant has entered an appearance, has jurisdiction to give a decision on the claim concerning maintenance obligations in respect of the minor child, notwithstanding its finding that it has no jurisdiction in the matter of parental responsibility for the minor child, or may the claim concerning maintenance obligations be decided only by a court having jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim concerning parental responsibility for the minor child? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the context of an action before the courts of a Member State which comprises three heads of claim concerning (i) the divorce of the parents of a minor child, (ii) parental responsibility for that minor child and (iii) maintenance obligations with regard to that minor child, may Article 3(a) and (d) and Article 5 of Regulation No 4/2009 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the court seised of the divorce petition, being also a court for the place where the defendant is habitually resident and the court before which the defendant has entered an appearance, has jurisdiction to give a decision on the claim concerning maintenance obligations in respect of the minor child, notwithstanding its finding that it has no jurisdiction in the matter of parental responsibility for the minor child, or may the claim concerning maintenance obligations be decided only by a court having jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim concerning parental responsibility for the minor child?

| 2. | In the circumstances relating to the jurisdiction of the national court described above, is the claim concerning maintenance obligations with regard to the minor child ancillary to the claim concerning parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 3(d) of Regulation No 4/2009? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the circumstances relating to the jurisdiction of the national court described above, is the claim concerning maintenance obligations with regard to the minor child ancillary to the claim concerning parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 3(d) of Regulation No 4/2009?

| 3. | In the event that the second question is answered in the negative, is it in the best interests of the child for a court of a Member State which has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3(a) of Regulation No 4/2009 to decide the claim concerning the maintenance obligations of the parents toward the minor child of the marriage of which the dissolution is sought, notwithstanding the fact that that court has found itself to have no jurisdiction in the matter of parental responsibility and has held, with the force of res judicata, that the conditions laid down by Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, are not fulfilled? (2) |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that the second question is answered in the negative, is it in the best interests of the child for a court of a Member State which has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3(a) of Regulation No 4/2009 to decide the claim concerning the maintenance obligations of the parents toward the minor child of the marriage of which the dissolution is sought, notwithstanding the fact that that court has found itself to have no jurisdiction in the matter of parental responsibility and has held, with the force of res judicata, that the conditions laid down by Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, are not fulfilled? (2)

---

(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).

(2)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 23 July 2018 — AS ‘PrivatBank’

(Case C-480/18)

(2018/C 381/07)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: AS ‘PrivatBank’

Other party to the proceedings: Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

Questions referred

| 1. | Is national legislation that empowers the [Latvian Financial and Capital Markets] Commission to examine complaints by payment service users even where the payment services have not been executed in euros or in the national currency of a Member State, and thus to find there to be infringements of the Law [on payment services and electronic money] and to impose penalties, compatible with Article 2(2) of Directive [2007/64/EC]? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is national legislation that empowers the [Latvian Financial and Capital Markets] Commission to examine complaints by payment service users even where the payment services have not been executed in euros or in the national currency of a Member State, and thus to find there to be infringements of the Law [on payment services and electronic money] and to impose penalties, compatible with Article 2(2) of Directive [2007/64/EC]? (1)

| 2. | Must Article 20(1) and (5) and Article 21(2) of the Directive be interpreted as allowing for the competent authority to supervise and impose penalties also in respect of payment services not executed in euros or the currency of a Member State outside the euro area? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 20(1) and (5) and Article 21(2) of the Directive be interpreted as allowing for the competent authority to supervise and impose penalties also in respect of payment services not executed in euros or the currency of a Member State outside the euro area?

| 3. | For the purposes of the supervisory functions laid down in Articles 20 and 21 of the Directive, or of the complaint procedures established in Articles 80 to 82 of the Directive, does the competent authority have the power to resolve disputes between a payer and a payment service provider arising from the legal relationships referred to in Article 75 of the Directive, determining who is liable for non-execution or defective execution of a transaction? |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the purposes of the supervisory functions laid down in Articles 20 and 21 of the Directive, or of the complaint procedures established in Articles 80 to 82 of the Directive, does the competent authority have the power to resolve disputes between a payer and a payment service provider arising from the legal relationships referred to in Article 75 of the Directive, determining who is liable for non-execution or defective execution of a transaction?

| 4. | In carrying out the supervisory functions laid down in Articles 20 and 21 of the Directive or the complaint procedures established in Articles 80 to 82 of the Directive, must the competent authority take account of an arbitral award made in settlement of a dispute between a payment service provider and a payment service user? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In carrying out the supervisory functions laid down in Articles 20 and 21 of the Directive or the complaint procedures established in Articles 80 to 82 of the Directive, must the competent authority take account of an arbitral award made in settlement of a dispute between a payment service provider and a payment service user?

---

(1)  Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 July 2018 — Farmland Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter

(Case C-489/18)

(2018/C 381/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Farmland Kft.

Defendant: Földművelésügyi Miniszter

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the rule established by the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 22/2010 of 16 March, the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 34/2010 of 9 April, the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 25/2011 of 7 April, and the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 22/2011 of 25 March — in accordance with which a farmer’s application for support is to be rejected based solely on the set of criteria relating to the ‘lawful user of the land’, laid down by national law, and the absence of the ‘certificate of land use’ as a result of those criteria, even though the farmer meets the other criteria relating to the application for support and, in particular, is able to prove that the parcels declared are at his disposal, that is to say, that he manages and exploits those parcels — compatible with EU law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the rule established by the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 22/2010 of 16 March, the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 34/2010 of 9 April, the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 25/2011 of 7 April, and the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 22/2011 of 25 March — in accordance with which a farmer’s application for support is to be rejected based solely on the set of criteria relating to the ‘lawful user of the land’, laid down by national law, and the absence of the ‘certificate of land use’ as a result of those criteria, even though the farmer meets the other criteria relating to the application for support and, in particular, is able to prove that the parcels declared are at his disposal, that is to say, that he manages and exploits those parcels — compatible with EU law?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative: does EU law require the paying agency of a Member State to take into account, in evaluating the application for support, other evidence that the ‘at the farmer’s disposal’ requirement referred to in Article 124 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 is satisfied? (1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative: does EU law require the paying agency of a Member State to take into account, in evaluating the application for support, other evidence that the ‘at the farmer’s disposal’ requirement referred to in Article 124 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 is satisfied? (1)

| 3. | If the first question is answered in the negative: from the perspective of EU law, what are the legal consequences of the statement by the farmer in the single application ‘that he is aware of the conditions pertaining to the aid schemes in question’, required by Article 12(e) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, (2) that is to say how should that statement be interpreted or assessed with regard to a particular restrictive provision of the Member State, such as the set of criteria relating to the ‘lawful user of the land’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the first question is answered in the negative: from the perspective of EU law, what are the legal consequences of the statement by the farmer in the single application ‘that he is aware of the conditions pertaining to the aid schemes in question’, required by Article 12(e) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, (2) that is to say how should that statement be interpreted or assessed with regard to a particular restrictive provision of the Member State, such as the set of criteria relating to the ‘lawful user of the land’?

| 4. | If the first question is answered in the negative: from the perspective of EU law, what are the legal consequences of an obligation imposed by the Member State to make a declaration that the set of criteria relating to the ‘lawful user of the land’ have been met or that administrative requirements relating to that particular restrictive provision of the Member State have been satisfied, that is to say how should that obligation be interpreted or assessed? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the first question is answered in the negative: from the perspective of EU law, what are the legal consequences of an obligation imposed by the Member State to make a declaration that the set of criteria relating to the ‘lawful user of the land’ have been met or that administrative requirements relating to that particular restrictive provision of the Member State have been satisfied, that is to say how should that obligation be interpreted or assessed?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v TC

(Case C-492/18)

(2018/C 381/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: TC

Question referred

In a case in which:

| — | the executing Member State has transposed Article 17 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) in such a way that the detention pending surrender of the requested person must in all cases be suspended once the 90-day period for taking a final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant has expired and |
| --- | --- |

—

the executing Member State has transposed Article 17 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) in such a way that the detention pending surrender of the requested person must in all cases be suspended once the 90-day period for taking a final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant has expired and

| — | the courts of that Member State have interpreted domestic law as meaning that the decision period is suspended as soon as the executing judicial authority decides to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or to await the reply to a question referred for a preliminary ruling by another executing judicial authority or to postpone the decision on surrender owing to a real danger of inhuman or degrading detention conditions in the issuing Member State, |
| --- | --- |

—

the courts of that Member State have interpreted domestic law as meaning that the decision period is suspended as soon as the executing judicial authority decides to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or to await the reply to a question referred for a preliminary ruling by another executing judicial authority or to postpone the decision on surrender owing to a real danger of inhuman or degrading detention conditions in the issuing Member State,

does the maintenance of the detention pending surrender of a requested person who represents a flight risk once that detention has continued for more than 90 days after that person’s arrest contravene Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Bondora AS v XY

(Case C-494/18)

(2018/C 381/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bondora AS

Defendant: XY

Questions referred

| 1. | Is national legislation such as section 4 of [Final Provision] 23 of the [Spanish Civil Procedure Act], which does not permit a contract or an itemisation of the debt to be provided or required in a claim in which the defendant is a consumer and where there is evidence that the sums being claimed could be based on unfair terms, compatible with Article 38 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], Article 6(1) [TEU] and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive [93/13/EEC]? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is national legislation such as section 4 of [Final Provision] 23 of the [Spanish Civil Procedure Act], which does not permit a contract or an itemisation of the debt to be provided or required in a claim in which the defendant is a consumer and where there is evidence that the sums being claimed could be based on unfair terms, compatible with Article 38 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], Article 6(1) [TEU] and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive [93/13/EEC]? (1)

| 2. | Is it compatible with Article 7(2)(d) of Regulation 1896/2006, establishing a European payment order procedure, (2) to require the applicant, in a claim against a consumer, to specify the itemisation of the debt he is claiming in section 11 of standard form A? Is it also compatible with that provision to require that the content of the contractual terms on the basis of which the applicant is making a claim against a consumer, beyond the principal subject matter of the contract, be reproduced in section 11 in order to assess whether they are unfair? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it compatible with Article 7(2)(d) of Regulation 1896/2006, establishing a European payment order procedure, (2) to require the applicant, in a claim against a consumer, to specify the itemisation of the debt he is claiming in section 11 of standard form A? Is it also compatible with that provision to require that the content of the contractual terms on the basis of which the applicant is making a claim against a consumer, beyond the principal subject matter of the contract, be reproduced in section 11 in order to assess whether they are unfair?

| 3. | If the answer to question two is negative, can the CJEU state whether it is permissible, under the current wording of Regulation 1896/2006, to assess ex officio, prior to the grant of a European payment order, whether unfair terms are being applied in a contract with a consumer, and the legal basis on which that assessment may be carried out? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question two is negative, can the CJEU state whether it is permissible, under the current wording of Regulation 1896/2006, to assess ex officio, prior to the grant of a European payment order, whether unfair terms are being applied in a contract with a consumer, and the legal basis on which that assessment may be carried out?

| 4. | In the event that it is not possible to assess ex officio, under the current wording of Regulation 1896/2006, the existence of unfair terms prior to granting a European payment order, the CJEU is asked to rule on the validity of the Regulation referred to and on whether it is contrary to Article 38 of the Charter and Article 6(1) [TEU]. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event that it is not possible to assess ex officio, under the current wording of Regulation 1896/2006, the existence of unfair terms prior to granting a European payment order, the CJEU is asked to rule on the validity of the Regulation referred to and on whether it is contrary to Article 38 of the Charter and Article 6(1) [TEU].

---

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

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1).

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 30 July 2018 — HUNGEOD Közlekedésfejlesztési, Földmérési, Út- és Vasúttervezési Kft. and Others v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

(Case C-496/18)

(2018/C 381/11)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HUNGEOD Közlekedésfejlesztési, Földmérési, Út- és Vasúttervezési Kft., SIXENSE Soldata, Budapesti Közlekedési Zrt.

Defendant: Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

Other party: Közbeszerzési Hatóság Elnöke

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 41(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, recitals 2, 25, 27 and 36 of Directive 2007/66/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC (2) of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, and, in this context, the principle of legal certainty, as a general principle of EU law, and the requirement for effective and rapid remedies against decisions by contracting authorities in public procurement cases, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, in relation to public procurement contracts entered into before that legislation came into force, provides a general authorisation that enables the competent (monitoring) authority created by that legislation, after the periods established in the Member State’s previous legislation for bringing an action for review of public procurement infringements committed prior to the entry into force of the new legislation have expired but within the time period established in the new legislation, to commence proceedings to investigate a specific public procurement infringement and to rule on the substance, leading to a ruling that the infringement did take place, the imposition of a public procurement penalty, and the application of the consequences of the voiding of the contract? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 41(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, recitals 2, 25, 27 and 36 of Directive 2007/66/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC (2) of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, and, in this context, the principle of legal certainty, as a general principle of EU law, and the requirement for effective and rapid remedies against decisions by contracting authorities in public procurement cases, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, in relation to public procurement contracts entered into before that legislation came into force, provides a general authorisation that enables the competent (monitoring) authority created by that legislation, after the periods established in the Member State’s previous legislation for bringing an action for review of public procurement infringements committed prior to the entry into force of the new legislation have expired but within the time period established in the new legislation, to commence proceedings to investigate a specific public procurement infringement and to rule on the substance, leading to a ruling that the infringement did take place, the imposition of a public procurement penalty, and the application of the consequences of the voiding of the contract?

| 2. | Can the legal rules and principles referred to in question 1 — and also the effective exercise of the (subjective and personal) right of review enjoyed by parties with an interest in the award of a public contract — be applied to the right to commence and conduct review proceedings conferred on the (monitoring) authorities created by the law of the Member State, which have the power to identify and investigate public procurement infringements of their own motion, and which are under a duty to defend the public interest? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the legal rules and principles referred to in question 1 — and also the effective exercise of the (subjective and personal) right of review enjoyed by parties with an interest in the award of a public contract — be applied to the right to commence and conduct review proceedings conferred on the (monitoring) authorities created by the law of the Member State, which have the power to identify and investigate public procurement infringements of their own motion, and which are under a duty to defend the public interest?

| 3. | Does Article 99(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/25/EU (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (4) mean that in order to defend EU financial interests in the field of public procurement, the law of the Member State may, through the adoption of new legislation, confer on the (monitoring) authorities which have power under the law of the Member State to identify and investigate public procurement infringements of their own motion, and which are under a duty to defend the public interest, a general power to investigate public procurement infringements committed before the entry into force of the legislation in question and to commence and conduct proceedings, even where the time periods established under the previous legislation have expired? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 99(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/25/EU (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (4) mean that in order to defend EU financial interests in the field of public procurement, the law of the Member State may, through the adoption of new legislation, confer on the (monitoring) authorities which have power under the law of the Member State to identify and investigate public procurement infringements of their own motion, and which are under a duty to defend the public interest, a general power to investigate public procurement infringements committed before the entry into force of the legislation in question and to commence and conduct proceedings, even where the time periods established under the previous legislation have expired?

| 4. | If — having regard to the legal rules and principles referred to in question 1 — the (monitoring) authorities’ power of investigation described in questions 1 and 3 is held to be compatible with EU law, is any relevance to be ascribed to the legal, regulatory, technical or organisational deficiencies or other obstacles that prevented the public procurement infringement from being investigated at the time when the infringement took place? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If — having regard to the legal rules and principles referred to in question 1 — the (monitoring) authorities’ power of investigation described in questions 1 and 3 is held to be compatible with EU law, is any relevance to be ascribed to the legal, regulatory, technical or organisational deficiencies or other obstacles that prevented the public procurement infringement from being investigated at the time when the infringement took place?

| 5. | Even if, in the light of the above principles, the (monitoring) authorities which are authorised by the law of the Member State to identify and investigate public procurement infringements of their own motion, and which are under a duty to defend the public interest may be granted the power referred to in questions 1 to 4, must Article 41(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, recitals 2, 25, 27 and 36 of Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors and, in this context, the principle of legal certainty, as a general principle of EU law, and the requirement for effective and rapid remedies against decisions by contracting authorities in public procurement cases, and the proportionality principle, be interpreted as meaning that the national courts may assess whether the period of time that has elapsed between the occurrence of the infringement, the expiry of the period previously established for bringing an action for review, and the commencement of the proceedings to investigate the infringement, is reasonable and proportionate, and may use this as a basis for determining the legal consequences of the nullity of the contested decision or other consequences established by the law of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Even if, in the light of the above principles, the (monitoring) authorities which are authorised by the law of the Member State to identify and investigate public procurement infringements of their own motion, and which are under a duty to defend the public interest may be granted the power referred to in questions 1 to 4, must Article 41(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, recitals 2, 25, 27 and 36 of Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors and, in this context, the principle of legal certainty, as a general principle of EU law, and the requirement for effective and rapid remedies against decisions by contracting authorities in public procurement cases, and the proportionality principle, be interpreted as meaning that the national courts may assess whether the period of time that has elapsed between the occurrence of the infringement, the expiry of the period previously established for bringing an action for review, and the commencement of the proceedings to investigate the infringement, is reasonable and proportionate, and may use this as a basis for determining the legal consequences of the nullity of the contested decision or other consequences established by the law of the Member State?

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31.

(2)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14.

(3)  Directive of 26 February 2014 (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243).

(4)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 30 July 2018 — Budapesti Közlekedési Zrt. v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

(Case C-497/18)

(2018/C 381/12)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Budapesti Közlekedési Zrt.

Defendant: Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

Other party: Közbeszerzési Hatóság Elnöke

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 41(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, recitals 2, 25, 27 and 36 of Directive 2007/66/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (2) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts and, in this context, the principle of legal certainty, as a general principle of EU law, and the requirement for effective and rapid remedies against decisions by contracting authorities in public procurement cases, be interpreted as precluding legislation by a Member State which, in relation to public procurement contracts entered into before that legislation came into force, provides a general authorisation that enables the competent (monitoring) authority created by that legislation, after the periods established in the Member State’s previous legislation for bringing an action for review of public procurement infringements committed prior to the entry into force of the new legislation have expired but within the time period established in the new legislation, to commence proceedings to investigate a specific public procurement infringement, leading to a ruling that the infringement did take place, the imposition of a public procurement penalty, and the application of the consequences of the voiding of the public contract? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 41(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, recitals 2, 25, 27 and 36 of Directive 2007/66/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (2) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts and, in this context, the principle of legal certainty, as a general principle of EU law, and the requirement for effective and rapid remedies against decisions by contracting authorities in public procurement cases, be interpreted as precluding legislation by a Member State which, in relation to public procurement contracts entered into before that legislation came into force, provides a general authorisation that enables the competent (monitoring) authority created by that legislation, after the periods established in the Member State’s previous legislation for bringing an action for review of public procurement infringements committed prior to the entry into force of the new legislation have expired but within the time period established in the new legislation, to commence proceedings to investigate a specific public procurement infringement, leading to a ruling that the infringement did take place, the imposition of a public procurement penalty, and the application of the consequences of the voiding of the public contract?

| 2. | Can the legal rules and principles referred to in question 1 — and also the effective exercise of the (subjective and personal) right of review enjoyed by parties with an interest in the award of a public contract — be applied to the right to commence and conduct review proceedings conferred on the (monitoring) authorities created by the law of the Member State, which have the power to identify and investigate public procurement infringements of their own motion, and which are under a duty to defend the public interest? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the legal rules and principles referred to in question 1 — and also the effective exercise of the (subjective and personal) right of review enjoyed by parties with an interest in the award of a public contract — be applied to the right to commence and conduct review proceedings conferred on the (monitoring) authorities created by the law of the Member State, which have the power to identify and investigate public procurement infringements of their own motion, and which are under a duty to defend the public interest?

| 3. | Does Article 83(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/24/EU (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (4) mean that in order to defend EU financial interests in the field of public procurement, the law of the Member State may, through the adoption of new legislation, confer on the (monitoring) authorities which have power under the law of the Member State to identify and investigate public procurement infringements of their own motion, and which are under a duty to defend the public interest, a general power to investigate public procurement infringements committed before the entry into force of the legislation in question and to commence and conduct proceedings, even where the time periods established under the previous legislation have expired? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 83(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/24/EU (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (4) mean that in order to defend EU financial interests in the field of public procurement, the law of the Member State may, through the adoption of new legislation, confer on the (monitoring) authorities which have power under the law of the Member State to identify and investigate public procurement infringements of their own motion, and which are under a duty to defend the public interest, a general power to investigate public procurement infringements committed before the entry into force of the legislation in question and to commence and conduct proceedings, even where the time periods established under the previous legislation have expired?

| 4. | If — having regard to the legal rules and principles referred to in question 1 — the (monitoring) authorities’ power of investigation described in questions 1 and 3 is held to be compatible with EU law, is any relevance to be ascribed to the legal, regulatory, technical or organisational deficiencies or other obstacles that prevented the public procurement infringement from being investigated at the time when the infringement took place? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If — having regard to the legal rules and principles referred to in question 1 — the (monitoring) authorities’ power of investigation described in questions 1 and 3 is held to be compatible with EU law, is any relevance to be ascribed to the legal, regulatory, technical or organisational deficiencies or other obstacles that prevented the public procurement infringement from being investigated at the time when the infringement took place?

| 5. | Even if, in the light of the above principles, the (monitoring) authorities which are authorised by the law of the Member State to identify and investigate public procurement infringements of their own motion, and which are under a duty to defend the public interest may be granted the power referred to in questions 1 to 4, must Article 41(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, recitals 2, 25, 27 and 36 of Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts and, in this context, the principle of legal certainty, as a general principle of EU law, and the requirement for effective and rapid remedies against decisions by contracting authorities in public procurement cases, and the proportionality principle, be interpreted as meaning that the national courts may assess whether the period of time that has elapsed between the occurrence of the infringement, the expiry of the period previously established for bringing an action for review, and the commencement of the proceedings to investigate the infringement, is reasonable and proportionate, and may use this as a basis for determining the legal consequences of the nullity of the contested decision or other consequences established by the law of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Even if, in the light of the above principles, the (monitoring) authorities which are authorised by the law of the Member State to identify and investigate public procurement infringements of their own motion, and which are under a duty to defend the public interest may be granted the power referred to in questions 1 to 4, must Article 41(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, recitals 2, 25, 27 and 36 of Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts and, in this context, the principle of legal certainty, as a general principle of EU law, and the requirement for effective and rapid remedies against decisions by contracting authorities in public procurement cases, and the proportionality principle, be interpreted as meaning that the national courts may assess whether the period of time that has elapsed between the occurrence of the infringement, the expiry of the period previously established for bringing an action for review, and the commencement of the proceedings to investigate the infringement, is reasonable and proportionate, and may use this as a basis for determining the legal consequences of the nullity of the contested decision or other consequences established by the law of the Member State?

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31.

(2)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.

(3)  Directive of 26 February 2014 (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(4)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/12

---

Appeal brought on 27 July 2018 by Bayer CropScience AG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 May 2018 in Case T-429/13: Bayer CropScience AG v European Commission

(Case C-499/18 P)

(2018/C 381/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bayer CropScience AG (represented by: K. Nordlander, advokat, C. Zimmermann, avocat, A. Robert, advocate, M. Zdzieborska, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Association générale des producteurs de maïs et autres céréales cultivées de la sous-famille des panicoïdées (AGPM), The National Farmers' Union (NFU), Association européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA), Rapool-Ring GmbH Qualitätsraps deutscher Züchter, European Seed Association (ESA), Agricultural Industries Confederation Ltd, Kingdom of Sweden, Union nationale de l'apiculture française (UNAF), Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV, Österreichischer Erwerbsimkerbund, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination (Bee Life), Buglife — The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Stichting Greenpeace Council

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Quash the judgment of the General Court in case T-429/13. |
| --- | --- |

—

Quash the judgment of the General Court in case T-429/13.

| — | Uphold the application at first instance and annul Regulation 485/2013 in so far as it concerns appellant. (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the application at first instance and annul Regulation 485/2013 in so far as it concerns appellant. (1)

| — | Order respondent to pay appellant’s costs, and its own costs, both at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order respondent to pay appellant’s costs, and its own costs, both at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law as follows:

First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in finding that an increase in the degree of certainty of previous scientific knowledge can be considered ‘new’ scientific know ledge under Article 21 (I) of Regulation 1107/2009. (2)

Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 21 (3) of Regulation 1107/2009 in holding that EFSA was not required to base its risk assessment on the official guidance applicable at the time of the review.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in its application of Article 21(3) of the PPP Regulation.

Fourth ground or appeal: the General Court erred in law in failing to determine an appropriate level of scientific certainty as to the materialization of the alleged risk required for the application of precautionary measures.

Fifth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in failing to apply the standards of a thorough and accurate risk assessment which needs to be carried out prior to the adoption of precautionary measures.

Sixth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in wrongly defining the scope and ignoring the requirements of the impact assessment which needs to be carried out prior to the adoption of precautionary measures.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing those active substances (OJ 2013, L 139, p. 12.).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009, L 309, p. 1.).

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) lodged on 30 July 2018 — AU v Reliantco Investments LTD, Reliantco Investments LTD Limassol Sucursala București

(Case C-500/18)

(2018/C 381/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AU

Defendants: Reliantco Investments LTD, Reliantco Investments LTD Limassol Sucursala București

Questions referred

| 1. | When interpreting the concept of ‘retail client’ in Article 4(1).12 of Directive 2004/39/[EC], (1) can or must the national court use the same interpretive criteria as those which define the concept of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13/EEC? (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

When interpreting the concept of ‘retail client’ in Article 4(1).12 of Directive 2004/39/[EC], (1) can or must the national court use the same interpretive criteria as those which define the concept of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13/EEC? (2)

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, under what conditions may a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/[39/EC] claim consumer status in a dispute such as that in the main proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, under what conditions may a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/[39/EC] claim consumer status in a dispute such as that in the main proceedings?

| 3. | In particular, do the facts that a ‘retail client’, within the meaning of Directive 2004/[39/EC], carries out a high volume of transactions within a relatively short period of time and that he invests very large sums of money in financial instruments such as those defined in Article 4[(1)].17 of Directive 2004/39/[EC], constitute relevant criteria for the purpose of assessing whether a ‘retail client’ has consumer status under that directive? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In particular, do the facts that a ‘retail client’, within the meaning of Directive 2004/[39/EC], carries out a high volume of transactions within a relatively short period of time and that he invests very large sums of money in financial instruments such as those defined in Article 4[(1)].17 of Directive 2004/39/[EC], constitute relevant criteria for the purpose of assessing whether a ‘retail client’ has consumer status under that directive?

| 4. | When attempting to establish its own jurisdiction, since it has the obligation to determine the impact of Article 17(1)(c) or Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, (3) whichever is applicable, can and/or must the national court take into consideration the legal basis relied on by the applicant (namely non-contractual liability alone) as a remedy for the conclusion of terms alleged to be unfair within the meaning of Directive 93/13/EEC, for which the substantive law applicable has been established pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), (4) or does the possible consumer status of the applicant make the substantive legal basis of his request irrelevant? |
| --- | --- |

4.

When attempting to establish its own jurisdiction, since it has the obligation to determine the impact of Article 17(1)(c) or Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, (3) whichever is applicable, can and/or must the national court take into consideration the legal basis relied on by the applicant (namely non-contractual liability alone) as a remedy for the conclusion of terms alleged to be unfair within the meaning of Directive 93/13/EEC, for which the substantive law applicable has been established pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), (4) or does the possible consumer status of the applicant make the substantive legal basis of his request irrelevant?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).

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

(3)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40).

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/14

---

Appeal brought on 26 July 2018 by Inge Barnett against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-23/17 Barnett v European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

(Case C-503/18 P)

(2018/C 381/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Inge Barnett (represented by: S. Orlandi, T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

Form of order sought

Primarily:

| — | Annul the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018, Barnett v EESC, T-23/17, EU:T:2018:271; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018, Barnett v EESC, T-23/17, EU:T:2018:271;

| — | Annul the decision of the EESC of 21 March 2016, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 22 September 2015, Barnett v EESC, F-20/14, EU:F:2015:107; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the EESC of 21 March 2016, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 22 September 2015, Barnett v EESC, F-20/14, EU:F:2015:107;

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

—

Order the EESC to pay the costs.

In the alternative:

| — | Annul the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018, Barnett v EESC, T-23/17, EU:T:2018:271; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018, Barnett v EESC, T-23/17, EU:T:2018:271;

| — | Annul the decision of the EESC of 21 March 2016, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 22 September 2015, Barnett v EESC, F-20/14, EU:F:2015:107; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the EESC of 21 March 2016, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 22 September 2015, Barnett v EESC, F-20/14, EU:F:2015:107;

| — | Order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay to the appellant a sum of EUR 207 994,14 in respect of the material damage suffered, together with default interest calculated from the due date of the sums payable, at the rate fixed by the European Central bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 points and a lump sum of EUR 25 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay to the appellant a sum of EUR 207 994,14 in respect of the material damage suffered, together with default interest calculated from the due date of the sums payable, at the rate fixed by the European Central bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 points and a lump sum of EUR 25 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

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

—

Order the EESC to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the General Court made several errors in law by considering that the EESC could, in order to give effect to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, merely review the appellant’s application in the light of an alleged interest of the service which was supposedly identified three years after the adoption of the first decision refusing her application and of which the parties were unaware until 21 March 2016. That alleged interest of the service, which causes the appellant to be struck off the list of beneficiaries because she is indispensable for the proper functioning of the service, is unrelated to the applicable GIP of the EESC. Furthermore, that alleged interest of the service was relied on without consultation of the Joint Committee. That committee had nevertheless pointed out in 2013 that in the event of the withdrawal of one of the beneficiaries of the measure, a proposal would be made to award the appellant that privilege, taking into account the interest of the service.

The appellant also maintains that the General Court failed to have regard to the force res judicata of a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal.

Finally, the contested judgment is vitiated by an error of law in that the General Court considered that, despite the repeal of the legal basis necessary for the adoption of the contested decision, the EESC had retained the competence to adopt a decision in response to the appellant’s application. In answering that plea, the Court also misinterpreted the arguments relied on in support of the objection of lack of competence raised by the appellant.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/15

---

Appeal brought on 9 August 2018 by Marion Le Pen against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2018 in Case T-86/17, Le Pen v European Parliament

(Case C-525/18 P)

(2018/C 381/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Marion Le Pen (represented by: R. Bosselut, avocat)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment delivered on 19 June 2018 by the Sixth Chamber of the General Court in Case T-86/17. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment delivered on 19 June 2018 by the Sixth Chamber of the General Court in Case T-86/17.

Accordingly:

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 5 December 2016, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’(‘the Implementing Measures’), as amended, establishing a sum owed in the amount of EUR 298 497,87; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 5 December 2016, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’(‘the Implementing Measures’), as amended, establishing a sum owed in the amount of EUR 298 497,87;

| — | annul Debit Note No 2016-1560 notified on 6 December 2016, informing the appellant that a debt had been established against her pursuant to the decision of the Secretary General of 5 December 2016, relating to recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the Implementing Measures and of Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Debit Note No 2016-1560 notified on 6 December 2016, informing the appellant that a debt had been established against her pursuant to the decision of the Secretary General of 5 December 2016, relating to recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the Implementing Measures and of Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;

| — | make an appropriate order as to the amount to be awarded to the appellant by way of compensation for the non-pecuniary damage which she has suffered as a result of the unfounded accusations made before the investigation was concluded, the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life occasioned by the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

make an appropriate order as to the amount to be awarded to the appellant by way of compensation for the non-pecuniary damage which she has suffered as a result of the unfounded accusations made before the investigation was concluded, the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life occasioned by the contested decision;

| — | make an order as to the amount to be awarded to the appellant in relation to the costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

make an order as to the amount to be awarded to the appellant in relation to the costs of the proceedings;

| — | order the Parliament to pay all of the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay all of the costs;

| — | before ruling in this case: request the Parliament to produce Ms CG’s administrative file, a record of the movements of Ms CG entering and leaving the Parliament’s seats in Strasbourg and Brussels, the anonymous letter which led to the opening of the proceedings and the OLAF file relating to the appellant and her assistant. |
| --- | --- |

—

before ruling in this case: request the Parliament to produce Ms CG’s administrative file, a record of the movements of Ms CG entering and leaving the Parliament’s seats in Strasbourg and Brussels, the anonymous letter which led to the opening of the proceedings and the OLAF file relating to the appellant and her assistant.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal is based on infringement of EU law by the General Court, errors in law and infringement of essential procedural requirements. The appellant fully justified the filing of new documents in the course of the proceedings by reason of new facts. Those documents constitute the amplification of those which had been submitted to the Secretary-General of the Parliament. The General Court had unlimited jurisdiction which required that those documents be taken into account in order to establish whether or not parliamentary assistant work had been carried out and, consequently, whether or not the recovery of undue payments was well founded. Moreover, some of that evidence was in the Parliament’s possession, but had been hidden from the appellant.

The second ground of appeal is based on infringement by the General Court of the rights of the defence and essential procedural requirements. The absence of a hearing of the appellant by the Secretary-General of the Parliament and the failure to transmit the file amount to an infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence, of the right to be heard in person before any decision, even an administrative decision, is taken, of the principles of equality of arms and procedural fairness, of the right to be head by an impartial forum and of the prohibition of denial of justice stemming from the Implementing Measures, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the general principles of law. Nor did the General Court note the failure to state reasons which vitiates the decision of the Secretary-General.

The third ground of appeal is based on infringement of EU law by the General Court, errors in law and an error of legal characterisation of the facts, distortion of the facts and evidence, discrimination and fumus persecutionis, and infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legality.

The fourth ground of appeal is based on misuse of power, as the judgment under appeal endorses the conduct of the Secretary-General of the Parliament, whose real objective and ultimate aim were to harm the appellant and her party.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg (Sweden) lodged on 13 August 2018 — AA v Migrationsverket

(Case C-526/18)

(2018/C 381/17)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AA

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions of the Schengen Agreement or the Schengen Borders Code preclude provisions of national law such as those set out in Paragraph 16 of the Lagen (2016:752) om tillfälliga begränsningar av möjligheten att få uppehållstillstånd i Sverige (Law (2016:752) on temporary restrictions on the possibility of obtaining a residence permit in Sweden) and which mean that a residence permit for study at secondary school level may be granted to a third-country national who is in a Member State, even if his or her identity is unclear or he or she is unable to provide prima facie evidence of his or her stated identity? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions of the Schengen Agreement or the Schengen Borders Code preclude provisions of national law such as those set out in Paragraph 16 of the Lagen (2016:752) om tillfälliga begränsningar av möjligheten att få uppehållstillstånd i Sverige (Law (2016:752) on temporary restrictions on the possibility of obtaining a residence permit in Sweden) and which mean that a residence permit for study at secondary school level may be granted to a third-country national who is in a Member State, even if his or her identity is unclear or he or she is unable to provide prima facie evidence of his or her stated identity?

| 2. | If, in such a situation, the Schengen acquis is deemed to include a requirement that identity has been made clear or for which prima facie evidence has been provided, can the provisions of the Returns Directive (1) or any other EU legislation be interpreted as permitting an exception from that identity requirement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If, in such a situation, the Schengen acquis is deemed to include a requirement that identity has been made clear or for which prima facie evidence has been provided, can the provisions of the Returns Directive (1) or any other EU legislation be interpreted as permitting an exception from that identity requirement?

---

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

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/17

---

Action brought on 27 August 2018 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-549/18)

(2018/C 381/18)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, G. von Rintelen and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt, by 26 June 2017, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2015/849/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 67 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt, by 26 June 2017, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2015/849/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 67 of that directive;

| — | order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty in the amount of EUR 21 974,40 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary to ensure transposition of Directive 2015/849/EU, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty in the amount of EUR 21 974,40 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary to ensure transposition of Directive 2015/849/EU, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

| — | order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a lump sum, based on a daily amount of EUR 6 016,80, multiplied by the number of days which have elapsed from the day following the expiry of the deadline for transposition laid down in the directive in question until the day on which Romania fulfils its obligations or, if it fails to fulfil those obligations, until the day on which the Court delivers its judgment, subject to exceeding a minimum lump sum of EUR 1 887 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a lump sum, based on a daily amount of EUR 6 016,80, multiplied by the number of days which have elapsed from the day following the expiry of the deadline for transposition laid down in the directive in question until the day on which Romania fulfils its obligations or, if it fails to fulfil those obligations, until the day on which the Court delivers its judgment, subject to exceeding a minimum lump sum of EUR 1 887 000;

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

—

order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The Member States had an obligation, under Article 67 of Directive 2015/849/EU, to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 26 June 2017. Since Romania has failed to communicate transposition measures, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Member States had an obligation, under Article 67 of Directive 2015/849/EU, to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 26 June 2017. Since Romania has failed to communicate transposition measures, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.

| 2. | In its application, the Commission claims that the Court should order Romania to pay a lump sum and periodic penalty payments pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In its application, the Commission claims that the Court should order Romania to pay a lump sum and periodic penalty payments pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 141, p. 73.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/18

---

Action brought on 30 August 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-556/18)

(2018/C 381/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(7), read in conjunction with Articles 13(1), 14 and 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, (1) by failing to comply with its public information and consultation obligation to review and update river basin management plans and by failing to adopt, publish and communicate to the Commission the revised and updated river basin management plans for the river basin districts of Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and el Hierro. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(7), read in conjunction with Articles 13(1), 14 and 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, (1) by failing to comply with its public information and consultation obligation to review and update river basin management plans and by failing to adopt, publish and communicate to the Commission the revised and updated river basin management plans for the river basin districts of Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and el Hierro.

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

—

Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 25 of Directive 2000/60/EC, that directive entered into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal, namely on 22 December 2000. As a result, the river basin management plans had to be published, in accordance with Article 13(6) of the directive, by 22 December 2009 at the latest and, in accordance with Article 13(7) thereof, be reviewed and updated for the first time by 22 December 2015 at the latest.

The Commission is of the view that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the articles cited above of Directive 2000/60/EC by failing to comply with its public information and consultation obligation to review and update river basin management plans and by failing to adopt, publish and communicate to the Commission the revised and updated river basin management plans for the river basin districts of Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and el Hierro within the two-month period set out in its reasoned opinion of 5 October 2017.

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.

---

General Court

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Apimab Laboratoires and Others v Commission

(Case T-14/16) (1)

((Consumer protection - Setting of maximum levels for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in food supplements - Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 - Risk analysis - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Principle of non-discrimination))

(2018/C 381/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Apimab Laboratoires (Clermont-l’Hérault, France) and the seven other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: A. de Brosses, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herbout-Borczak and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1933 of 27 October 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in cocoa fibre, banana chips, food supplements, dried herbs and dried spices (OJ 2015 L 282, p. 11).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Apimab Laboratoires and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Apimab Laboratoires and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — PH v Commission

(Case T-613/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Recruitment - Open competition - Notice of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 - Decision to exclude the candidate from the competition - Family connection to a member of the selection board - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 381/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: PH (represented by: M. Cornacchia, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 19 May 2016 confirming, in response to a request for review made by the applicant, the exclusion of the latter from the competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders PH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-43/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission

(Case T-654/16) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Rejection of a request for a partial interim review, limited to dumping aspects, of the definitive anti-dumping duty established by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 - Lasting change in circumstances - Sampling - Individual examination - No cooperation in the investigation that led to the adoption of the definitive measures))

(2018/C 381/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd. (Foshan City, China) (represented by: B. Spinoit and D. Philippe, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 4259 final of 11 July 2016 rejecting a request for a partial interim review limited to dumping aspects with regard to the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — De Geoffroy and Others v Parliament.

(Case T-788/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Leave - Adoption of the Parliament’s new Guidelines on leave management - Individual decisions taken under the new guidelines in the interpretation services - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Interests of the service - Plea of illegality))

(2018/C 381/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Dominique De Geoffroy (Brussels, Belgium) and the 14 other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented initially by N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, and subsequently by N. de Montigny, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of Parliament’s guidelines of 21 March 2016 on the implementation, for interpretation services, of Article 4(5) of the internal rules on leave management; secondly, of Parliament’s decision of 12 April 2016 accepting Ms Françoise Joostens’ application for leave, but including the requested days of leave within a quota of three and a half days; thirdly, of Parliament’s decision of 2 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mrs Joostens and, fourthly, of the Parliament’s decision of 13 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mr Stéphane Grosjean.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 13 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mr Stéphane Grosjean. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 13 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mr Stéphane Grosjean.

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action.

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

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Chefaro Ireland v EUIPO — Laboratoires M&L (NUIT PRECIEUSE)

(Case T-905/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark NUIT PRECIEUSE - Earlier national word mark EAU PRECIEUSE - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 381/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chefaro Ireland DAC (Dublin, Ireland)) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Laboratoires M&L SA (Manosque, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2016 (Case R 2596/2015-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Chefaro Ireland and Laboratoires M&L.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Chefaro Ireland DAC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Chefaro Ireland DAC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Healy v Commission

(Case T-55/17) (1)

((Civil service - Contract staff - Recruitment - Internal competition - Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants - Eligibility condition relating to length of service within the Commission - Non-admission to the assessment tests in a competition))

(2018/C 381/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: John Morrison Healy (Celbridge, Ireland) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the selection board for internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the applicant’s candidature.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr John Morrison Healy to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr John Morrison Healy to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Pelikan v EUIPO — NBA Properties (NEW ORLEANS PELICANS)

(Case T-112/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark NEW ORLEANS PELICANS - Earlier EU word marks and earlier national figurative mark Pelikan - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 381/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: NBA Properties, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented initially by: M. Chapple, and subsequently by T. Elias, Barristers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2016 (Case R 408/2016-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft and NBA Properties.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 –Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz)

(Case T-584/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz - Earlier national work marks PRIMA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 381/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz (Wołomin, Poland) (represented by: J. Skołuda, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bolton Cile España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2017 (Case R 1933/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bolton Cile España and Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/24

---

Order of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — Front Polisario v Council

(Case T-180/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco - Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities provided for in that agreement - Act concluding the agreement - Applicability of the agreement and protocol to the territory of Western Sahara and the waters adjacent thereto - Lack of standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 381/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents)

Party intervening in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, F. Castillo de la Torre and E. Paasivirta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of, first, Council Decision 2013/785/EU of 16 December 2013 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco (OJ 2013 L 349, p. 1) and, second, Commission Decision (EU) 2018/393 of 12 March 2018 approving, on behalf of the European Union, amendments to the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco (OJ 2018 L 69, p. 60).

Operative part of the order

The Court orders:

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia-el-Hanra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario) shall pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia-el-Hanra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario) shall pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 6.6.2014.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/25

---

Order of the General Court of 27 July 2018 — Apple Distribution International v Commission

(Case T-101/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid planned by Germany to fund film production and distribution - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - No individual concern - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 381/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Distribution International (Cork, Ireland) (represented by: S. Schwiddessen, H. Lutz, N. Niejahr and A. Patsa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda, G. Braun and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2042 of 1 September 2016 on the aid scheme SA.38418 — 2014/C (ex 2014/N) which Germany is planning to implement for the funding of film production and distribution (OJ 2016 L 314, p. 63).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene lodged by the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the Filmförderungsanstalt. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene lodged by the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the Filmförderungsanstalt.

| 3. | Apple Distribution International shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Apple Distribution International shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene.

| 4. | Apple Distribution International, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the Filmförderungsanstalt shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Apple Distribution International, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the Filmförderungsanstalt shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/26

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 20 August 2018 — IFSUA v Council

(Case T-251/18 R)

((Interim measures - Fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks - Measures on European seabass fisheries - Ban on catches in recreational fisheries - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

(2018/C 381/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: International Forum for Sustainable Underwater Activities (IFSUA) (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. Gui Mori, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and P. Plaza García, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Morales Puerta, F. Moro and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 for the suspension of operation of Article 2(2) and Article 9(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120 of 23 January 2018 fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (OJ 2018, L.27, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/26

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2018 — CdT v EUIPO

(Case T-417/18 R)

((Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Translation services required for the functioning of EUIPO - Use of external contractors - Application for interim measures - No urgency))

(2018/C 381/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, first, for the suspension of operation of EUIPO’s decisions relating to measures intended to make it possible to use service providers other than the CdT for the translation services required for its functioning and, secondly, for an order requiring EUIPO to publish in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union a notice suspending its call for tenders concerning the provision of translation services and not to sign contracts relating to that call for tenders.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/27

---

Action brought on 9 August 2018 — Compañia de Tranvías de la Coruña v Commission

(Case T-485/18)

(2018/C 381/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Compañia de Tranvías de la Coruña, SA (A Coruña, Spain) (represented by: J. Monrabà Bagan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul European Commission decision C(2018) 3780 final of 7 June 2018 concerning access to documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission decision C(2018) 3780 final of 7 June 2018 concerning access to documents;

| — | 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, alleging that the contested decision fails to respect essential procedural requirements.






  — | The decision does not provide sufficient reasoning to deny or give only partial access to documents in view of the inexistent link between the pending Court proceedings relied upon (Joined Cases C-350/17 Mobit (1) and C-351/17 Autolinee Toscane (2)) and the request for access to documents. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision fails to respect essential procedural requirements.

—

The decision does not provide sufficient reasoning to deny or give only partial access to documents in view of the inexistent link between the pending Court proceedings relied upon (Joined Cases C-350/17 Mobit (1) and C-351/17 Autolinee Toscane (2)) and the request for access to documents.

| — | Sufficient reasoning is an essential procedural requirement and shall always be respected by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

Sufficient reasoning is an essential procedural requirement and shall always be respected by the European Commission.

| — | The lack of sufficient reasoning entails that the contested decision does not comply with Article 296, second paragraph, TFEU, and, thus, is to be considered void under Article 264, first paragraph, TFEU |
| --- | --- |

—

The lack of sufficient reasoning entails that the contested decision does not comply with Article 296, second paragraph, TFEU, and, thus, is to be considered void under Article 264, first paragraph, TFEU

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, alternatively, the concurrence of an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents whose access has been denied by the contested decision.






  — | The documents whose access has been requested are of public interest since they would help interpreting essential points on EU regulations on public passenger transport services by rail and by road which have been previously applied by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, alternatively, the concurrence of an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents whose access has been denied by the contested decision.

—

The documents whose access has been requested are of public interest since they would help interpreting essential points on EU regulations on public passenger transport services by rail and by road which have been previously applied by the European Commission.

| — | Thus, even were the Court to find a link between the abovementioned pending Joined Cases C-350/17 Mobit and C-351/17 Autolinee Toscane and the request for access to documents, Article 4(2), in fine, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (3) allows for access to documents when there is an overriding public interest. |
| --- | --- |

—

Thus, even were the Court to find a link between the abovementioned pending Joined Cases C-350/17 Mobit and C-351/17 Autolinee Toscane and the request for access to documents, Article 4(2), in fine, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (3) allows for access to documents when there is an overriding public interest.

| — | The relevance of the documents, not only for the applicant, but for any authority or stakeholder willing to apply EU regulations on public passenger transport services by rail and by road, constitutes an overriding public interest and, thus, access thereto should be granted. |
| --- | --- |

—

The relevance of the documents, not only for the applicant, but for any authority or stakeholder willing to apply EU regulations on public passenger transport services by rail and by road, constitutes an overriding public interest and, thus, access thereto should be granted.

---

(1)  Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017, Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. v Regione Toscana (OJ 2017 C 330, p. 4).

(2)  Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Autolinee Toscane SpA v Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. (OJ 2017 C 330, p. 5).

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

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/28

---

Action brought on 15 August 2018 — Danske Slagtermestre v European Commission

(Case T-486/18)

(2018/C 381/33)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Danske Slagtermestre (Odense, Denmark) (represented by: H. Sønderby Christensen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 April 2018 in State aid case SA.37433(2017/FC), notified as document C(2018) 2259; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 April 2018 in State aid case SA.37433(2017/FC), notified as document C(2018) 2259;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | The first plea in law is that the Commission infringed the principle of audi alteram partem.
  The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the principle of audi alteram partem, see Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it failed to give to Danske Slagtermestre the opportunity to be heard in relation to the submissions of the opposing party, on the basis of which the Commission made its decision in this case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law is that the Commission infringed the principle of audi alteram partem.

The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the principle of audi alteram partem, see Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it failed to give to Danske Slagtermestre the opportunity to be heard in relation to the submissions of the opposing party, on the basis of which the Commission made its decision in this case.

| 2. | The second plea in law is that the Commission was not impartial in making its decision.
  The applicant claims that the Commission infringed Danske Slagtermestre’s right to impartial treatment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law is that the Commission was not impartial in making its decision.

The applicant claims that the Commission infringed Danske Slagtermestre’s right to impartial treatment.

| 3. | The third plea in law is that the aid grants an advantage. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea in law is that the aid grants an advantage.

| 4. | The fourth plea in law is that the aid is selective. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth plea in law is that the aid is selective.

| 5. | The fifth plea in law is that the aid is granted by the State or through State resources. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The fifth plea in law is that the aid is granted by the State or through State resources.

| 6. | The sixth plea in law is that the aid distorts competition. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The sixth plea in law is that the aid distorts competition.

| 7. | The seventh plea in law is that the aid affects trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The seventh plea in law is that the aid affects trade between Member States.

The applicant claims, in support of the third to seventh pleas in law, inter alia, that the Commission erred in law in finding that the measure did not confer an advantage on certain undertakings.

| — | First, it is claimed that the measure confers on large slaughter houses an obvious advantage because the measure ensures that smaller slaughter houses pay more than twice as much in waste water charges per animal for slaughter as compared with large slaughter houses, which therefore can pay a higher price to suppliers. |
| --- | --- |

—

First, it is claimed that the measure confers on large slaughter houses an obvious advantage because the measure ensures that smaller slaughter houses pay more than twice as much in waste water charges per animal for slaughter as compared with large slaughter houses, which therefore can pay a higher price to suppliers.

| — | Second, it is claimed that there is no objective reason for conferring a reduction in waste water charges only on large slaughter houses, when the ‘true cost’ payment is the same for small, medium-sized and large slaughter houses, and the measure can only be ‘cost true’, if the reduction is also given to smaller slaughter houses. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second, it is claimed that there is no objective reason for conferring a reduction in waste water charges only on large slaughter houses, when the ‘true cost’ payment is the same for small, medium-sized and large slaughter houses, and the measure can only be ‘cost true’, if the reduction is also given to smaller slaughter houses.

| — | Third, it is claimed that the Commission’s market economy operator (MEO) test is inapplicable for the purposes of assessing whether the measure confers an advantage, because no Danish undertaking has any right to be disconnected from a central treatment plant, and because there is no actual or potential market for waste water drainage in Denmark. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third, it is claimed that the Commission’s market economy operator (MEO) test is inapplicable for the purposes of assessing whether the measure confers an advantage, because no Danish undertaking has any right to be disconnected from a central treatment plant, and because there is no actual or potential market for waste water drainage in Denmark.

| — | Fourth, it is claimed that even if the MEO test is applicable, the Commission has not correctly applied that test. The MEO test can only be based on data established in relation to the activity of the specific user. It is incompatible with the MEO test to use average figures obtained from other municipalities in the calculation and, further, to ignore the significant capital expenditure of treatment plants on the connection of large beneficiary undertakings to the municipal plant in the form of expenditure on waste water infrastructure and the expansion of treatment plants. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth, it is claimed that even if the MEO test is applicable, the Commission has not correctly applied that test. The MEO test can only be based on data established in relation to the activity of the specific user. It is incompatible with the MEO test to use average figures obtained from other municipalities in the calculation and, further, to ignore the significant capital expenditure of treatment plants on the connection of large beneficiary undertakings to the municipal plant in the form of expenditure on waste water infrastructure and the expansion of treatment plants.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/29

---

Action brought on 17 August 2018 — PO v EEAS

(Case T-494/18)

(2018/C 381/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PO (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | [Annul] the calculation slip dated 17 October 2017 which was sent to him by email on the same day by the EEAS Human Resources Department; |
| --- | --- |

—

[Annul] the calculation slip dated 17 October 2017 which was sent to him by email on the same day by the EEAS Human Resources Department;

| — | [Annul] the email of 16 January 2018 sent to him by the EEAS Human Resources Department confirming the absence of a legal basis to exceed the statutory ceiling for his son and daughter; |
| --- | --- |

—

[Annul] the email of 16 January 2018 sent to him by the EEAS Human Resources Department confirming the absence of a legal basis to exceed the statutory ceiling for his son and daughter;

| — | [Annul], in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint lodged on 17 January 2018 and notified to the applicant on 17 May 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

[Annul], in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint lodged on 17 January 2018 and notified to the applicant on 17 May 2018;

| — | 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, alleging illegality, since the contested decision, the note of 15 April 2016 and the note of 22 September 2016 on which it is based, along with the Guidelines, infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Annex X thereto. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging illegality, since the contested decision, the note of 15 April 2016 and the note of 22 September 2016 on which it is based, along with the Guidelines, infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Annex X thereto.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the individual decision contested in the present case on the following grounds;






  — | Infringement of the precautionary principle, the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, of the principle of sound administration and of their acquired rights; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the individual decision contested in the present case on the following grounds;

—

Infringement of the precautionary principle, the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, of the principle of sound administration and of their acquired rights;

| — | Infringement of the right to family and of the right to education; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the right to family and of the right to education;

| — | Infringement of the principles of equality and non-discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of equality and non-discrimination;

| — | The absence of any balancing of interests and failure to observe the principle of proportionality of the adopted measure. |
| --- | --- |

—

The absence of any balancing of interests and failure to observe the principle of proportionality of the adopted measure.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/30

---

Action brought on 6 September 2018 — K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum)

(Case T-527/18)

(2018/C 381/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: A. Haudan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tecnium, SA (Manresa, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘tec.nicum’ — European Union trade mark No 13 626 791

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2018 in Case R 2427/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it confirms the dismissal of the application for registration of the contested mark for Class 42; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it confirms the dismissal of the application for registration of the contested mark for Class 42;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | No genuine use of the mark on which the opposition is based; |
| --- | --- |

—

No genuine use of the mark on which the opposition is based;

| — | Incorrect identification of the relevant public; |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect identification of the relevant public;

| — | No similarity between the services; |
| --- | --- |

—

No similarity between the services;

| — | No similarity between the opposing marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

No similarity between the opposing marks;

| — | No likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

No likelihood of confusion.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/31

---

Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY GEEK SQUAD)

(Case T-715/15) (1)

(2018/C 381/36)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/31

---

Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY)

(Case T-773/15) (1)

(2018/C 381/37)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/31

---

Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)

(Case T-72/16) (1)

(2018/C 381/38)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

---

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/31

---

Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Sky v EUIPO — Parrot Drones (Parrot SKYCONTROLLER)

(Case T-288/17) (1)

(2018/C 381/39)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---