# Official Journal C 44/4 Fe

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 44 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 624 February 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 44

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 624 February 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2019/C 44/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2019/C 44/01

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 |
| 2019/C 44/02 | Case C-305/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava — Slovakia) — FENS spol. s r.o. v Slovenská republika — Úrad pre reguláciu sieťových odvetví (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Customs duties — Charges having equivalent effect — Levy on the transmission of electricity generated domestically and intended for export — Compatibility of such legislation with the principle of free movement of goods) | 2 |
| 2019/C 44/03 | Case C-378/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána v Workplace Relations Commission (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Recruitment of police officers — National body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area — Power to disapply national legislation that conflicts with EU law — Primacy of EU law) | 3 |
| 2019/C 44/04 | Case C-480/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Frank Montag v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Direct taxation — Income tax — Deductibility of contributions to an occupational pension scheme and to a private pension scheme — Exclusion of non-residents) | 3 |
| 2019/C 44/05 | Case C-629/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — J. Portugal Ramos Vinhos SA v Adega Cooperativa de Borba CRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Trade mark law — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 3(1)(c) — Grounds for invalidity — Word marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve in trade to designate the characteristics of goods or services — Other characteristics of goods or services — Production facility for a product — Word mark composed of a sign designating wine products and of a geographical name, constituting a word element of the trade mark proprietor’s business name) | 4 |
| 2019/C 44/06 | Case C-672/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Tratave — Tratamento de Águas Residuais do Ave SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Taxable amount — Reduction — Principle of fiscal neutrality) | 5 |
| 2019/C 44/07 | Case C-675/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero della Salute v Hannes Preindl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Recognition of professional qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of the evidence of formal qualifications obtained following periods of partially overlapping training — Host Member State’s powers of investigation) | 5 |
| 2019/C 44/08 | Case C-92/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — French Republic v European Parliament | 6 |
| 2019/C 44/09 | Case C-412/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 June 2018 by Anthony Andrew King against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2018 in Case T-810/17: King v Commission | 7 |
| 2019/C 44/10 | Case C-547/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 23 August 2018 — Dong Yang Electronics Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu | 7 |
| 2019/C 44/11 | Case C-558/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 3 September 2018 — City of Łowicz v State Treasury — Governor of Łódź Province | 8 |
| 2019/C 44/12 | Case C-563/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 5 September 2018 — Criminal proceedings against VX, WW and XV | 9 |
| 2019/C 44/13 | Case C-585/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 20 September 2018 — A. K. v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa | 9 |
| 2019/C 44/14 | Case C-624/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 October 2018 — CP v Sąd Najwyższy | 10 |
| 2019/C 44/15 | Case C-625/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 October 2018 — DO v Sąd Najwyższy | 10 |
| 2019/C 44/16 | Case C-653/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 October 2018 — Unitel Sp. z o.o. w Warszawie v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie | 11 |
| 2019/C 44/17 | Case C-668/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 October 2018 — BP v UNIPARTS sàrl, having its registered office in Nyon | 12 |
| 2019/C 44/18 | Case C-684/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 6 November 2018 — World Comm Trading Gfz SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești | 13 |
| 2019/C 44/19 | Case C-709/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Špecializovaný trestný súd (Slovakia) lodged on 14 November 2018 — Criminal proceedings against UL and VM | 14 |
| 2019/C 44/20 | Case C-725/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 22 November 2018 — Anton van Zantbeek VOF; other party: Ministerraad | 15 |
| 2019/C 44/21 | Case C-735/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 26 November 2018 — IZ v Ryanair DAC | 16 |
| 2019/C 44/22 | Case C-742/18 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2018 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2018 in Case T-627/16, Czech Republic v Commission | 17 |
| | General Court |
| 2019/C 44/23 | Cases T-274/16 and T-275/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Saleh Thabet and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt — Freezing of funds — Objectives — Criteria for inclusion of persons targeted — Renewal of the applicants’ designation on the list of persons targeted — Factual basis — Plea of illegality — Legal basis — Proportionality — Right to a fair trial — Presumption of innocence — Principle of good administration — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection) | 19 |
| 2019/C 44/24 | Joined Cases T-314/16 and T-435/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — VG v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents and information relating to a decision of the Commission to put an end to a letter of agreement and membership of Team Europe — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the protection of individuals — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Refusal of transfer — Articles 7, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Non-contractual liability) | 20 |
| 2019/C 44/25 | Case T-329/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma v Commission and EMA (Medicinal products for human use — Orphan medicinal products — Decision withdrawing the designation of Elotuzumab as an orphan medicinal product — Decision that the designation criteria were no longer met — Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use Empliciti (Elotuzumab) — Article 5(12)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 — Article 5(8) of Regulation No 141/2000 — Obligation to state reasons) | 21 |
| 2019/C 44/26 | Case T-459/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Spain v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Deficiencies in the IACS — Permanent pastures — Risk for the fund — Document VI/5330/97 — Article 73a(2a) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Article 81(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 — Flat-rate corrections of 25 % and 10 %) | 21 |
| 2019/C 44/27 | Case T-517/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Janoha and Others v Commission (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 — Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — New provisions relating to the days of leave granted applicable to officials posted in a third country — Objection of illegality — Second paragraph of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations — Articles 7 and 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Equal treatment — Acquired rights — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Misuse of powers) | 22 |
| 2019/C 44/28 | Case T-518/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials and members of the contractual staff — Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 — Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — New provisions relating to annual leave applicable to officials posted in a third country — Objection of illegality — Purpose of annual leave) | 23 |
| 2019/C 44/29 | Case T-560/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Schneider v EUIPO (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Internal reorganisation of EUIPO’s services — Redeployment — Legal basis — Article 7 of the Staff Regulations — Interests of the service — Significant change in tasks — Equivalence of posts — Covert penalty — Misuse of powers — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons) | 24 |
| 2019/C 44/30 | Case T-688/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Janssen-Cases v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Commission Mediator — Competent appointing authority — Delegation of powers — Procedure — Consultation of the Staff Committee — Liability) | 24 |
| 2019/C 44/31 | Case T-720/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — ARFEA v Commission (State aid — Retroactive public service compensation granted by the Italian authorities — Regional bus transport service provided between 1997 and 1998 on the basis of concessions — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Altmark judgment — Temporal application of rules of substantive law) | 25 |
| 2019/C 44/32 | Case T-811/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Di Bernardo v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Competition notice — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Obligation to state reasons — Professional experience — Liability) | 26 |
| 2019/C 44/33 | Case T-829/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Decision declaring ineligible certain expenditure of a political party for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year — Right to good administration — Legal certainty — Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 — Prohibition on the indirect financing of a national political party) | 26 |
| 2019/C 44/34 | Case T-875/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Falcon Technologies International v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Evaluation report of a notified body within the meaning of the legislation on EC declarations of conformity of medical devices — Refusal of access — Exception relating to protection of commercial interests — Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination — Overriding public interest — Partial refusal of access) | 27 |
| 2019/C 44/35 | Case T-31/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Portugal v Commission (EAGF — Expenditure excluded from financing — Specific measures in favour of the outermost regions — Article 12(c) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 — Technical assistance — Inspection measures — Procedural guarantees — Legitimate expectations) | 28 |
| 2019/C 44/36 | Case T-152/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Sumner v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning an infringement procedure brought by the Commission against Ireland — Refusal of access — Exception concerning the protection of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption — Overriding public interest) | 28 |
| 2019/C 44/37 | Case T-161/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2018 — Le Pen v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Power of the Secretary-General — Rights of the defence — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Misuse of power — Error of fact — Proportionality) | 29 |
| 2019/C 44/38 | Case T-214/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Out of the blue v EUIPO — Dubois and MFunds USA (FUNNY BANDS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark FUNNY BANDS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 30 |
| 2019/C 44/39 | Case T-312/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Campbell v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning an infringement procedure brought by the Commission against the Republic of Lithuania — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption — Overriding public interest) | 31 |
| 2019/C 44/40 | Case T-315/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Hebberecht v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — EEAS — Posting — Post of Head of Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia — Decision refusing to extend the posting — Interest of the service — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment) | 31 |
| 2019/C 44/41 | Case T-372/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Bee-Fee Group (LV POWER ENERGY DRINK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark LV POWER ENERGY DRINK — Earlier EU figurative mark LV — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark) | 32 |
| 2019/C 44/42 | Case T-373/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Fulia Trading (LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE — Earlier EU figurative mark LV — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark) | 33 |
| 2019/C 44/43 | Case T-416/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese — Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 34 |
| 2019/C 44/44 | Case T-417/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese — Earlier United Kingdom certification word mark HALLOUMI — Rejection of the opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 35 |
| 2019/C 44/45 | Case T-458/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Shindler and Others v Council (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU — Agreement setting out the arrangements for withdrawal — Article 50 TEU — Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom with a view to conclusion of that agreement — UK citizens residing in another EU Member State — Preparatory act — Act not open to challenge — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility) | 35 |
| 2019/C 44/46 | Case T-493/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — WL v ERCEA (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Administrative inquiry — Extension of a probationary period — Preparatory act — Dismissal — Notification of dismissal by email — Time for bringing a complaint — Starting point — Inadmissibility — Compliance with essential procedural requirements — Dismissal decision at the end of the probationary period — Breach of the relationship of trust — Liability — Request for a hearing made in the application but not reiterated in accordance with Article 106(2) of the Rules of Procedure) | 36 |
| 2019/C 44/47 | Case T-651/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools (Spray gun for paint) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a paint spray gun — Earlier Community designs — Ground for invalidity — Informed user — Designer’s degree of freedom — Individual character — Saturation of the state of the art — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Expediency of oral proceedings — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Duty to state reasons — Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002) | 37 |
| 2019/C 44/48 | Case T-681/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Khadi — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Mark containing badges, emblems or escutcheons — Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 38 |
| 2019/C 44/49 | Case T-682/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 39 |
| 2019/C 44/50 | Case T-683/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Khadi Ayurveda — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 40 |
| 2019/C 44/51 | Case T-702/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Papouis Halloumi — Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 41 |
| 2019/C 44/52 | Case T-703/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Papouis Halloumi — Earlier United Kingdom certification word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 42 |
| 2019/C 44/53 | Case T-724/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — The Vianel Group v EUIPO — Viania Dessous (VIANEL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark VIANEL — Earlier EU word mark VIANIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 43 |
| 2019/C 44/54 | Case T-763/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Septona v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (welly) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark welly — Earlier EU figurative marks Kelly’s and Kelly’s www.kellys.eu CHIPS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 43 |
| 2019/C 44/55 | Case T-824/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — H2O Plus v EUIPO (H 2 O+) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark H 2 O+ — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 44 |
| 2019/C 44/56 | Case T-826/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Fio Systems (FYYO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark FYYO — Earlier EU word mark FIO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 45 |
| 2019/C 44/57 | Case T-9/18: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Addiko Bank v EUIPO (STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU work mark STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 45 |
| 2019/C 44/58 | Case T-59/18: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIVIA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark FEMIVIA — Earlier EU word mark FEMIBION INTIMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 46 |
| 2019/C 44/59 | Case T-78/18: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — AB Mauri Italy v EUIPO — Lesaffre (FERMIN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU word mark FERMIN — Earlier international and Benelux word marks FERMIPAN — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 47 |
| 2019/C 44/60 | Case T-585/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Cheverny Investments v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 47 |
| 2019/C 44/61 | Case T-586/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 – Oppenheim v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 48 |
| 2019/C 44/62 | Case T-610/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Wagon Automotive Nagold v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 49 |
| 2019/C 44/63 | Case T-612/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Treofan Holdings and Treofan Germany v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 50 |
| 2019/C 44/64 | Case T-613/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — VMS Deutschland v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 50 |
| 2019/C 44/65 | Case T-619/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — CB v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 51 |
| 2019/C 44/66 | Case T-621/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — SiNN v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 52 |
| 2019/C 44/67 | Case T-626/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Sky Deutschland and Sky Deutschland Fernsehen v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 53 |
| 2019/C 44/68 | Case T-627/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ATMvision v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 53 |
| 2019/C 44/69 | Case T-628/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Biogas Nord v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 54 |
| 2019/C 44/70 | Case T-629/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Biogas Nord Anlagenbau v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 55 |
| 2019/C 44/71 | Case T-552/16: Order of the General Court of 16 November 2018 — OT v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA — Rejection of the candidature — Opinion of the CCA — Non-challengeable act — Manifest inadmissibility) | 56 |
| 2019/C 44/72 | Case T-576/16: Order of the General Court of 16 November 2018 — OT v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA — Rejection of the candidature — Lis pendens — Rejection of a request for assistance — No interest in bringing proceedings — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded) | 56 |
| 2019/C 44/73 | Case T-661/16: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Credito Fondiario SpA v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution — Period for bringing an action — Out of time — Plea of illegality — Manifest inadmissibility) | 57 |
| 2019/C 44/74 | Case T-14/17: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution — Period for bringing an action — Out of time — Manifest inadmissibility) | 58 |
| 2019/C 44/75 | Case T-42/17: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution — Period for bringing an action — Out of time — Manifest inadmissibility) | 58 |
| 2019/C 44/76 | Case T-282/17: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — UI v Council (Civil service — Official — Action for failure to act — No decision following the report on the probationary period — Article 34 of the Staff Regulations — Decision to dismiss — No need to adjudicate) | 59 |
| 2019/C 44/77 | Case T-293/17: Order of the General Court of 23 October 2018 — Fakro v Commission (Appeal — Abuse of a dominant position in the roof windows market — Action for a declaration of failure to act — Rejection decision terminating the failure to act — No need to adjudicate) | 60 |
| 2019/C 44/78 | Case T-355/17: Order of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Figurative mark RoB — Declaration of invalidity — Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Rule 49(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Rule 62(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 58(3) of Regulation 2018/625) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 60 |
| 2019/C 44/79 | Case T-356/17: Order of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Word mark RoB — Declaration of invalidity — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 62(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 58(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 61 |
| 2019/C 44/80 | Case T-494/17: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Iccrea Banca v Commission and SRB (Action for annulment and damages — Economic and Monetary Union — Banking Union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Determination of the ex ante contribution for 2016 — Incorrect designation of the defendant — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Hypothetical measures — Claim for damages — Closely connected with the claim for annulment — Plea of illegality — Manifest inadmissibility) | 62 |
| 2019/C 44/81 | Case T-560/17: Order of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Fortischem v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Environment — Regulation (EU) 2017/852 — Protection of human health and the environment — Prohibition on chlor-alkali production using mercury as an electrode — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Act not of individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 62 |
| 2019/C 44/82 | Case T-658/17: Order of the General Court of 12 November 2018 — Stichting Against Child Trafficking v Commission (Action for annulment and for failure to act — Legal person informing OLAF of potentially reprehensible conduct — OLAF’s decision not to open an investigation — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — Costs — Equity — Article 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure) | 63 |
| 2019/C 44/83 | Case T-711/17: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Spinoit v Commission and Others (Action for annulment and damages — Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the Delegation of the European Union to Algeria in the context of a public service contract — Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert — Termination of the agreement between the contracting company and the applicant further to that decision — No capacity as a defendant — Act not open to challenge — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link — Action manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly lacking any foundation in law in part) | 64 |
| 2019/C 44/84 | Case T-717/17: Order of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Chioreanu v ERCEA (Action for annulment — ERCEA — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020) — Decision rejecting an application for revision of an evaluation of the research proposal — Administrative action before the Commission — Dismissal of the administrative action — Mistaken designation of the defendant — Application for directions to be issued — Manifest inadmissibility) | 65 |
| 2019/C 44/85 | Case T-733/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — GMPO v Commission (Interim relief — Medicinal products for human use — Active substance trientine tetrahydrochloride — Commission decision not to classify the medicinal product Cuprior-trientine as an orphan medicinal product — Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency) | 65 |
| 2019/C 44/86 | Case T-756/17: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — CMS Hasche Sigle v EUIPO (WORLD LAW GROUP) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark WORLD LAW GROUP — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 66 |
| 2019/C 44/87 | Case T-793/17: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Bruel v Commission and Others (Action for annulment and damages — Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the EU Delegation to Algeria in the context of a public procurement procedure for the provision of services — Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert — Termination of the agreement between the successful tendering company and the applicant following that decision — No capacity as defendant — Act not open to challenge — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 67 |
| 2019/C 44/88 | Case T-809/17: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT (Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Inadmissible) | 67 |
| 2019/C 44/89 | Case T-811/17: Order of the General Court of 3 December 2018 — Classic Media v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (CLASSIC DRIVER) (EU Trade Mark — Opposition Proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CLASSIC DRIVER — Earlier EU word mark DRIVER — Relative Ground for Refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 68 |
| 2019/C 44/90 | Case T-45/18: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Novenco Building & Industry v EUIPO — Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) (NOVENCO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark NOVENCO — Earlier EU word mark Novenco — Cancellation of the international registration — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 69 |
| 2019/C 44/91 | Case T-82/18: Order of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — Husky CZ v EUIPO — Husky of Tostock (HUSKY) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark HUSKY — Earlier EU word and figurative marks HUSKY — Relative ground for refusal — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 69 |
| 2019/C 44/92 | Case T-275/18: Order of the General Court of 30 November 2018 — Front Polisario v Council (Action for annulment — Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part — Act concluding the agreement — Lack of applicability of the agreement to the territory of Western Sahara — Lack of standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 70 |
| 2019/C 44/93 | Case T-305/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 28 November 2018 — Klyuyev v Council (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case — No urgency) | 71 |
| 2019/C 44/94 | Case T-337/18 R II: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission (Interim relief — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Biocidal products — Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) — Approval refused — Application for interim measures — New application — No new facts — Inadmissibility) | 71 |
| 2019/C 44/95 | Case T-347/18 R II: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission (Interim relief — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Biocidal products — Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) — Approval refused — Application for interim measures — New application — No new facts — Inadmissibility) | 72 |
| 2019/C 44/96 | Case T-419/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission (Interim proceedings — Competition — Euro Interbank Offered Rates (Euribor) — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information contained in a decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Application for interim measures — No prima facie case) | 73 |
| 2019/C 44/97 | Case T-420/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Competition — Euro Interbank Offered Rates (Euribor) — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of a decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Application for interim measures — No prima facie case) | 73 |
| 2019/C 44/98 | Case T-590/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Antonakopoulos v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Civil service — Officials — Suspension of an official from duties without withholding remuneration — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Damage to reputation — No urgency) | 74 |
| 2019/C 44/99 | Case T-591/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ZD v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Civil service — Officials — Suspension of an official from duties without withholding remuneration — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Damage to reputation — No urgency) | 75 |
| 2019/C 44/100 | Case T-603/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ZE v Parliament (Interim measures — Civil service — Officials — Suspension of an official without the withholding of remuneration — Application for interim measures — Damage to reputation — No urgency) | 75 |
| 2019/C 44/101 | Case T-699/18: Action brought on 26 November 2018 — Apera Capital Master v EUIPO — Altera Capital (APERA CAPITAL) | 76 |
| 2019/C 44/102 | Case T-708/18: Action brought on 28 November 2018 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FLIS Happy Moreno choco) | 76 |
| 2019/C 44/103 | Case T-712/18: Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Umweltinstitut München v Commission | 77 |
| 2019/C 44/104 | Case T-713/18: Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals) | 78 |
| 2019/C 44/105 | Case T-716/18: Action brought on 5 December 2018 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there) | 79 |
| 2019/C 44/106 | Case T-719/18: Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Telemark plus v EUIPO (Telemarkfest) | 79 |
| 2019/C 44/107 | Case T-729/18: Action brought on 10 December 2018 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Lloyd Shoes (LLOYD) | 80 |
| 2019/C 44/108 | Case T-636/15: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Infratel Italia and Others v Commission | 81 |
| 2019/C 44/109 | Case T-295/17: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Danpower Baltic v Commission | 81 |
| 2019/C 44/110 | Case T-379/17: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T) | 81 |
| 2019/C 44/111 | Case T-401/17: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T) | 82 |
| 2019/C 44/112 | Case T-730/17: Order of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission | 82 |
| 2019/C 44/113 | Case T-2/18: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO — AXA Banque (boon.) | 82 |
| 2019/C 44/114 | Case T-222/18: Order of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL) | 82 |
| 2019/C 44/115 | Case T-252/18: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — European Anglers Alliance v Council | 83 |
| 2019/C 44/116 | Case T-374/18: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Labiri v EESC | 83 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2019/C 44/02

Case C-305/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava — Slovakia) — FENS spol. s r.o. v Slovenská republika — Úrad pre reguláciu sieťových odvetví (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Customs duties — Charges having equivalent effect — Levy on the transmission of electricity generated domestically and intended for export — Compatibility of such legislation with the principle of free movement of goods)

2

2019/C 44/03

Case C-378/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána v Workplace Relations Commission (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Recruitment of police officers — National body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area — Power to disapply national legislation that conflicts with EU law — Primacy of EU law)

3

2019/C 44/04

Case C-480/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Frank Montag v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Direct taxation — Income tax — Deductibility of contributions to an occupational pension scheme and to a private pension scheme — Exclusion of non-residents)

3

2019/C 44/05

Case C-629/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — J. Portugal Ramos Vinhos SA v Adega Cooperativa de Borba CRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Trade mark law — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 3(1)(c) — Grounds for invalidity — Word marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve in trade to designate the characteristics of goods or services — Other characteristics of goods or services — Production facility for a product — Word mark composed of a sign designating wine products and of a geographical name, constituting a word element of the trade mark proprietor’s business name)

4

2019/C 44/06

Case C-672/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Tratave — Tratamento de Águas Residuais do Ave SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Taxable amount — Reduction — Principle of fiscal neutrality)

5

2019/C 44/07

Case C-675/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero della Salute v Hannes Preindl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Recognition of professional qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of the evidence of formal qualifications obtained following periods of partially overlapping training — Host Member State’s powers of investigation)

5

2019/C 44/08

Case C-92/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — French Republic v European Parliament

6

2019/C 44/09

Case C-412/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 June 2018 by Anthony Andrew King against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2018 in Case T-810/17: King v Commission

7

2019/C 44/10

Case C-547/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 23 August 2018 — Dong Yang Electronics Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

7

2019/C 44/11

Case C-558/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 3 September 2018 — City of Łowicz v State Treasury — Governor of Łódź Province

8

2019/C 44/12

Case C-563/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 5 September 2018 — Criminal proceedings against VX, WW and XV

9

2019/C 44/13

Case C-585/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 20 September 2018 — A. K. v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

9

2019/C 44/14

Case C-624/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 October 2018 — CP v Sąd Najwyższy

10

2019/C 44/15

Case C-625/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 October 2018 — DO v Sąd Najwyższy

10

2019/C 44/16

Case C-653/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 October 2018 — Unitel Sp. z o.o. w Warszawie v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

11

2019/C 44/17

Case C-668/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 October 2018 — BP v UNIPARTS sàrl, having its registered office in Nyon

12

2019/C 44/18

Case C-684/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 6 November 2018 — World Comm Trading Gfz SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

13

2019/C 44/19

Case C-709/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Špecializovaný trestný súd (Slovakia) lodged on 14 November 2018 — Criminal proceedings against UL and VM

14

2019/C 44/20

Case C-725/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 22 November 2018 — Anton van Zantbeek VOF; other party: Ministerraad

15

2019/C 44/21

Case C-735/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 26 November 2018 — IZ v Ryanair DAC

16

2019/C 44/22

Case C-742/18 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2018 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2018 in Case T-627/16, Czech Republic v Commission

17

General Court

2019/C 44/23

Cases T-274/16 and T-275/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Saleh Thabet and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt — Freezing of funds — Objectives — Criteria for inclusion of persons targeted — Renewal of the applicants’ designation on the list of persons targeted — Factual basis — Plea of illegality — Legal basis — Proportionality — Right to a fair trial — Presumption of innocence — Principle of good administration — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection)

19

2019/C 44/24

Joined Cases T-314/16 and T-435/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — VG v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents and information relating to a decision of the Commission to put an end to a letter of agreement and membership of Team Europe — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the protection of individuals — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Refusal of transfer — Articles 7, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Non-contractual liability)

20

2019/C 44/25

Case T-329/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma v Commission and EMA (Medicinal products for human use — Orphan medicinal products — Decision withdrawing the designation of Elotuzumab as an orphan medicinal product — Decision that the designation criteria were no longer met — Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use Empliciti (Elotuzumab) — Article 5(12)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 — Article 5(8) of Regulation No 141/2000 — Obligation to state reasons)

21

2019/C 44/26

Case T-459/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Spain v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Deficiencies in the IACS — Permanent pastures — Risk for the fund — Document VI/5330/97 — Article 73a(2a) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Article 81(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 — Flat-rate corrections of 25 % and 10 %)

21

2019/C 44/27

Case T-517/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Janoha and Others v Commission (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 — Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — New provisions relating to the days of leave granted applicable to officials posted in a third country — Objection of illegality — Second paragraph of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations — Articles 7 and 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Equal treatment — Acquired rights — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Misuse of powers)

22

2019/C 44/28

Case T-518/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials and members of the contractual staff — Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 — Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — New provisions relating to annual leave applicable to officials posted in a third country — Objection of illegality — Purpose of annual leave)

23

2019/C 44/29

Case T-560/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Schneider v EUIPO (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Internal reorganisation of EUIPO’s services — Redeployment — Legal basis — Article 7 of the Staff Regulations — Interests of the service — Significant change in tasks — Equivalence of posts — Covert penalty — Misuse of powers — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons)

24

2019/C 44/30

Case T-688/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Janssen-Cases v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Commission Mediator — Competent appointing authority — Delegation of powers — Procedure — Consultation of the Staff Committee — Liability)

24

2019/C 44/31

Case T-720/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — ARFEA v Commission (State aid — Retroactive public service compensation granted by the Italian authorities — Regional bus transport service provided between 1997 and 1998 on the basis of concessions — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Altmark judgment — Temporal application of rules of substantive law)

25

2019/C 44/32

Case T-811/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Di Bernardo v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Competition notice — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Obligation to state reasons — Professional experience — Liability)

26

2019/C 44/33

Case T-829/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Decision declaring ineligible certain expenditure of a political party for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year — Right to good administration — Legal certainty — Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 — Prohibition on the indirect financing of a national political party)

26

2019/C 44/34

Case T-875/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Falcon Technologies International v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Evaluation report of a notified body within the meaning of the legislation on EC declarations of conformity of medical devices — Refusal of access — Exception relating to protection of commercial interests — Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination — Overriding public interest — Partial refusal of access)

27

2019/C 44/35

Case T-31/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Portugal v Commission (EAGF — Expenditure excluded from financing — Specific measures in favour of the outermost regions — Article 12(c) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 — Technical assistance — Inspection measures — Procedural guarantees — Legitimate expectations)

28

2019/C 44/36

Case T-152/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Sumner v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning an infringement procedure brought by the Commission against Ireland — Refusal of access — Exception concerning the protection of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption — Overriding public interest)

28

2019/C 44/37

Case T-161/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2018 — Le Pen v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Power of the Secretary-General — Rights of the defence — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Misuse of power — Error of fact — Proportionality)

29

2019/C 44/38

Case T-214/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Out of the blue v EUIPO — Dubois and MFunds USA (FUNNY BANDS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark FUNNY BANDS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

30

2019/C 44/39

Case T-312/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Campbell v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning an infringement procedure brought by the Commission against the Republic of Lithuania — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption — Overriding public interest)

31

2019/C 44/40

Case T-315/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Hebberecht v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — EEAS — Posting — Post of Head of Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia — Decision refusing to extend the posting — Interest of the service — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment)

31

2019/C 44/41

Case T-372/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Bee-Fee Group (LV POWER ENERGY DRINK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark LV POWER ENERGY DRINK — Earlier EU figurative mark LV — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark)

32

2019/C 44/42

Case T-373/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Fulia Trading (LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE — Earlier EU figurative mark LV — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark)

33

2019/C 44/43

Case T-416/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese — Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

34

2019/C 44/44

Case T-417/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese — Earlier United Kingdom certification word mark HALLOUMI — Rejection of the opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

35

2019/C 44/45

Case T-458/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Shindler and Others v Council (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU — Agreement setting out the arrangements for withdrawal — Article 50 TEU — Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom with a view to conclusion of that agreement — UK citizens residing in another EU Member State — Preparatory act — Act not open to challenge — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

35

2019/C 44/46

Case T-493/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — WL v ERCEA (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Administrative inquiry — Extension of a probationary period — Preparatory act — Dismissal — Notification of dismissal by email — Time for bringing a complaint — Starting point — Inadmissibility — Compliance with essential procedural requirements — Dismissal decision at the end of the probationary period — Breach of the relationship of trust — Liability — Request for a hearing made in the application but not reiterated in accordance with Article 106(2) of the Rules of Procedure)

36

2019/C 44/47

Case T-651/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools (Spray gun for paint) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a paint spray gun — Earlier Community designs — Ground for invalidity — Informed user — Designer’s degree of freedom — Individual character — Saturation of the state of the art — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Expediency of oral proceedings — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Duty to state reasons — Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)

37

2019/C 44/48

Case T-681/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Khadi — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Mark containing badges, emblems or escutcheons — Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

38

2019/C 44/49

Case T-682/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

39

2019/C 44/50

Case T-683/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Khadi Ayurveda — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

40

2019/C 44/51

Case T-702/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Papouis Halloumi — Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

41

2019/C 44/52

Case T-703/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Papouis Halloumi — Earlier United Kingdom certification word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

42

2019/C 44/53

Case T-724/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — The Vianel Group v EUIPO — Viania Dessous (VIANEL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark VIANEL — Earlier EU word mark VIANIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

43

2019/C 44/54

Case T-763/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Septona v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (welly) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark welly — Earlier EU figurative marks Kelly’s and Kelly’s www.kellys.eu CHIPS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

43

2019/C 44/55

Case T-824/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — H2O Plus v EUIPO (H 2 O+) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark H 2 O+ — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

44

2019/C 44/56

Case T-826/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Fio Systems (FYYO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark FYYO — Earlier EU word mark FIO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

45

2019/C 44/57

Case T-9/18: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Addiko Bank v EUIPO (STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU work mark STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

45

2019/C 44/58

Case T-59/18: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIVIA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark FEMIVIA — Earlier EU word mark FEMIBION INTIMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

46

2019/C 44/59

Case T-78/18: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — AB Mauri Italy v EUIPO — Lesaffre (FERMIN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU word mark FERMIN — Earlier international and Benelux word marks FERMIPAN — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

47

2019/C 44/60

Case T-585/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Cheverny Investments v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

47

2019/C 44/61

Case T-586/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 – Oppenheim v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

48

2019/C 44/62

Case T-610/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Wagon Automotive Nagold v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

49

2019/C 44/63

Case T-612/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Treofan Holdings and Treofan Germany v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

50

2019/C 44/64

Case T-613/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — VMS Deutschland v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

50

2019/C 44/65

Case T-619/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — CB v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

51

2019/C 44/66

Case T-621/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — SiNN v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

52

2019/C 44/67

Case T-626/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Sky Deutschland and Sky Deutschland Fernsehen v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

53

2019/C 44/68

Case T-627/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ATMvision v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

53

2019/C 44/69

Case T-628/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Biogas Nord v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

54

2019/C 44/70

Case T-629/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Biogas Nord Anlagenbau v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

55

2019/C 44/71

Case T-552/16: Order of the General Court of 16 November 2018 — OT v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA — Rejection of the candidature — Opinion of the CCA — Non-challengeable act — Manifest inadmissibility)

56

2019/C 44/72

Case T-576/16: Order of the General Court of 16 November 2018 — OT v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA — Rejection of the candidature — Lis pendens — Rejection of a request for assistance — No interest in bringing proceedings — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

56

2019/C 44/73

Case T-661/16: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Credito Fondiario SpA v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution — Period for bringing an action — Out of time — Plea of illegality — Manifest inadmissibility)

57

2019/C 44/74

Case T-14/17: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution — Period for bringing an action — Out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

58

2019/C 44/75

Case T-42/17: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution — Period for bringing an action — Out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

58

2019/C 44/76

Case T-282/17: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — UI v Council (Civil service — Official — Action for failure to act — No decision following the report on the probationary period — Article 34 of the Staff Regulations — Decision to dismiss — No need to adjudicate)

59

2019/C 44/77

Case T-293/17: Order of the General Court of 23 October 2018 — Fakro v Commission (Appeal — Abuse of a dominant position in the roof windows market — Action for a declaration of failure to act — Rejection decision terminating the failure to act — No need to adjudicate)

60

2019/C 44/78

Case T-355/17: Order of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Figurative mark RoB — Declaration of invalidity — Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Rule 49(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Rule 62(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 58(3) of Regulation 2018/625) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

60

2019/C 44/79

Case T-356/17: Order of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Word mark RoB — Declaration of invalidity — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 62(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 58(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

61

2019/C 44/80

Case T-494/17: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Iccrea Banca v Commission and SRB (Action for annulment and damages — Economic and Monetary Union — Banking Union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Determination of the ex ante contribution for 2016 — Incorrect designation of the defendant — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Hypothetical measures — Claim for damages — Closely connected with the claim for annulment — Plea of illegality — Manifest inadmissibility)

62

2019/C 44/81

Case T-560/17: Order of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Fortischem v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Environment — Regulation (EU) 2017/852 — Protection of human health and the environment — Prohibition on chlor-alkali production using mercury as an electrode — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Act not of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

62

2019/C 44/82

Case T-658/17: Order of the General Court of 12 November 2018 — Stichting Against Child Trafficking v Commission (Action for annulment and for failure to act — Legal person informing OLAF of potentially reprehensible conduct — OLAF’s decision not to open an investigation — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — Costs — Equity — Article 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

63

2019/C 44/83

Case T-711/17: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Spinoit v Commission and Others (Action for annulment and damages — Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the Delegation of the European Union to Algeria in the context of a public service contract — Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert — Termination of the agreement between the contracting company and the applicant further to that decision — No capacity as a defendant — Act not open to challenge — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link — Action manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly lacking any foundation in law in part)

64

2019/C 44/84

Case T-717/17: Order of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Chioreanu v ERCEA (Action for annulment — ERCEA — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020) — Decision rejecting an application for revision of an evaluation of the research proposal — Administrative action before the Commission — Dismissal of the administrative action — Mistaken designation of the defendant — Application for directions to be issued — Manifest inadmissibility)

65

2019/C 44/85

Case T-733/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — GMPO v Commission (Interim relief — Medicinal products for human use — Active substance trientine tetrahydrochloride — Commission decision not to classify the medicinal product Cuprior-trientine as an orphan medicinal product — Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

65

2019/C 44/86

Case T-756/17: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — CMS Hasche Sigle v EUIPO (WORLD LAW GROUP) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark WORLD LAW GROUP — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

66

2019/C 44/87

Case T-793/17: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Bruel v Commission and Others (Action for annulment and damages — Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the EU Delegation to Algeria in the context of a public procurement procedure for the provision of services — Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert — Termination of the agreement between the successful tendering company and the applicant following that decision — No capacity as defendant — Act not open to challenge — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

67

2019/C 44/88

Case T-809/17: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT (Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Inadmissible)

67

2019/C 44/89

Case T-811/17: Order of the General Court of 3 December 2018 — Classic Media v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (CLASSIC DRIVER) (EU Trade Mark — Opposition Proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CLASSIC DRIVER — Earlier EU word mark DRIVER — Relative Ground for Refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

68

2019/C 44/90

Case T-45/18: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Novenco Building & Industry v EUIPO — Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) (NOVENCO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark NOVENCO — Earlier EU word mark Novenco — Cancellation of the international registration — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

69

2019/C 44/91

Case T-82/18: Order of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — Husky CZ v EUIPO — Husky of Tostock (HUSKY) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark HUSKY — Earlier EU word and figurative marks HUSKY — Relative ground for refusal — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

69

2019/C 44/92

Case T-275/18: Order of the General Court of 30 November 2018 — Front Polisario v Council (Action for annulment — Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part — Act concluding the agreement — Lack of applicability of the agreement to the territory of Western Sahara — Lack of standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

Front Polisario

Council

70

2019/C 44/93

Case T-305/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 28 November 2018 — Klyuyev v Council (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case — No urgency)

71

2019/C 44/94

Case T-337/18 R II: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission (Interim relief — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Biocidal products — Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) — Approval refused — Application for interim measures — New application — No new facts — Inadmissibility)

71

2019/C 44/95

Case T-347/18 R II: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission (Interim relief — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Biocidal products — Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) — Approval refused — Application for interim measures — New application — No new facts — Inadmissibility)

72

2019/C 44/96

Case T-419/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission (Interim proceedings — Competition — Euro Interbank Offered Rates (Euribor) — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information contained in a decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Application for interim measures — No prima facie case)

73

2019/C 44/97

Case T-420/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Competition — Euro Interbank Offered Rates (Euribor) — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of a decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Application for interim measures — No prima facie case)

73

2019/C 44/98

Case T-590/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Antonakopoulos v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Civil service — Officials — Suspension of an official from duties without withholding remuneration — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Damage to reputation — No urgency)

74

2019/C 44/99

Case T-591/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ZD v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Civil service — Officials — Suspension of an official from duties without withholding remuneration — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Damage to reputation — No urgency)

75

2019/C 44/100

Case T-603/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ZE v Parliament (Interim measures — Civil service — Officials — Suspension of an official without the withholding of remuneration — Application for interim measures — Damage to reputation — No urgency)

75

2019/C 44/101

Case T-699/18: Action brought on 26 November 2018 — Apera Capital Master v EUIPO — Altera Capital (APERA CAPITAL)

76

2019/C 44/102

Case T-708/18: Action brought on 28 November 2018 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FLIS Happy Moreno choco)

76

2019/C 44/103

Case T-712/18: Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Umweltinstitut München v Commission

77

2019/C 44/104

Case T-713/18: Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals)

78

2019/C 44/105

Case T-716/18: Action brought on 5 December 2018 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there)

79

2019/C 44/106

Case T-719/18: Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Telemark plus v EUIPO (Telemarkfest)

79

2019/C 44/107

Case T-729/18: Action brought on 10 December 2018 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Lloyd Shoes (LLOYD)

80

2019/C 44/108

Case T-636/15: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Infratel Italia and Others v Commission

81

2019/C 44/109

Case T-295/17: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Danpower Baltic v Commission

81

2019/C 44/110

Case T-379/17: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T)

81

2019/C 44/111

Case T-401/17: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T)

82

2019/C 44/112

Case T-730/17: Order of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

82

2019/C 44/113

Case T-2/18: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO — AXA Banque (boon.)

82

2019/C 44/114

Case T-222/18: Order of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL)

82

2019/C 44/115

Case T-252/18: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — European Anglers Alliance v Council

83

2019/C 44/116

Case T-374/18: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Labiri v EESC

83

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/1

---

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

(2019/C 44/01)

Last publication

OJ C 35, 28.1.2019

Past publications

OJ C 25, 21.1.2019

OJ C 16, 14.1.2019

OJ C 4, 7.1.2019

OJ C 455, 17.12.2018

OJ C 445, 10.12.2018

OJ C 436, 3.12.2018

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava — Slovakia) — FENS spol. s r.o. v Slovenská republika — Úrad pre reguláciu sieťových odvetví

(Case C-305/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Customs duties - Charges having equivalent effect - Levy on the transmission of electricity generated domestically and intended for export - Compatibility of such legislation with the principle of free movement of goods))

(2019/C 44/02)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Bratislava

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FENS spol. s r.o.

Defendant: Slovenská republika — Úrad pre reguláciu sieťových odvetví

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 28 TFEU and 30 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides for a pecuniary charge, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is imposed on electricity exported to another Member State or to a third country only in the case where that electricity was generated within the national territory.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána v Workplace Relations Commission

(Case C-378/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment in employment - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Recruitment of police officers - National body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area - Power to disapply national legislation that conflicts with EU law - Primacy of EU law))

(2019/C 44/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Respondent: Workplace Relations Commission

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular the principle of primacy of EU law, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a national body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area lacks jurisdiction to decide to disapply a rule of national law that is contrary to EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Frank Montag v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

(Case C-480/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Income tax - Deductibility of contributions to an occupational pension scheme and to a private pension scheme - Exclusion of non-residents))

(2019/C 44/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frank Montag

Defendant: Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a non-resident taxable person, subject, in that Member State, to income tax in the framework of limited tax liability, cannot deduct from the income tax basis of assessment the amount of compulsory contributions paid into an occupational pension scheme in due proportion to the share of the income taxable in that Member State if directly linked to the activity which generated that income, whereas a resident taxable person, subject to income tax in the framework of unlimited tax liability, can deduct such contributions from the income tax basis of assessment to the extent laid down by national law.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a non-resident taxable person, subject, in that Member State, to income tax in the framework of limited tax liability, cannot deduct from the income tax basis of assessment the amount of additional contributions paid into an occupational pension scheme or the amount of contributions paid into a private pension scheme, whereas a resident taxable person, subject to income tax in the framework of unlimited tax liability, can deduct such contributions from the income tax basis of assessment to the extent laid down by national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — J. Portugal Ramos Vinhos SA v Adega Cooperativa de Borba CRL

(Case C-629/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Trade mark law - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 3(1)(c) - Grounds for invalidity - Word marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve in trade to designate the characteristics of goods or services - Other characteristics of goods or services - Production facility for a product - Word mark composed of a sign designating wine products and of a geographical name, constituting a word element of the trade mark proprietor’s business name))

(2019/C 44/05)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J. Portugal Ramos Vinhos SA

Defendant: Adega Cooperativa de Borba CRL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the registration of a trade mark consisting of a word sign, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, designating wine products and including a geographical name, must be refused, where that sign contains, in particular, a term which is commonly used to designate facilities or sites in which those products are produced and is also one of the word elements of the business name of the legal entity seeking to register that trade mark.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Tratave — Tratamento de Águas Residuais do Ave SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-672/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Taxable amount - Reduction - Principle of fiscal neutrality))

(2019/C 44/06)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tratave — Tratamento de Águas Residuais do Ave SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of neutrality as well as Articles 90 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the reduction of the taxable amount for value added tax (VAT), in the event of non-payment, cannot be made by the taxable person until it has given prior notice of its intention to cancel all or part of the VAT to the purchaser of goods or services, if that purchaser is a taxable person, for the purposes of correcting the deduction of VAT that the latter has made.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero della Salute v Hannes Preindl

(Case C-675/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of the evidence of formal qualifications obtained following periods of partially overlapping training - Host Member State’s powers of investigation))

(2019/C 44/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministero della Salute

Defendant: Hannes Preindl

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 21, 22 and 24 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications must be interpreted as obliging a Member State, whose legislation creates a requirement to pursue full-time training and a prohibition on being enrolled on two courses at the same time, automatically to recognise the evidence of formal qualifications issued by another Member State on the completion of partially concurrent training. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 21, 22 and 24 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications must be interpreted as obliging a Member State, whose legislation creates a requirement to pursue full-time training and a prohibition on being enrolled on two courses at the same time, automatically to recognise the evidence of formal qualifications issued by another Member State on the completion of partially concurrent training.

| 2. | Article 21 and Article 22(a) of Directive 2005/36 must be interpreted as precluding the host Member State from verifying compliance with the condition that the overall duration, level and quality of part-time training are not lower than those of continuous full-time training. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 21 and Article 22(a) of Directive 2005/36 must be interpreted as precluding the host Member State from verifying compliance with the condition that the overall duration, level and quality of part-time training are not lower than those of continuous full-time training.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/6

---

Action brought on 7 February 2018 — French Republic v European Parliament

(Case C-92/18)

(2019/C 44/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, E. de Moustier and B. Fodda, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the agenda of the plenary session of the European Parliament of Wednesday 29 November 2017 (document P8_OJ (2017) 11-29), in so far as it includes debates on the joint text on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018, the agenda of the session of Thursday 30 November 2017 (document P8_OJ (2017) 11-30), in so far as it includes a vote followed by explanations of votes on the joint text on the draft general budget, the European Parliament legislative resolution of 30 November 2017 on the joint text on the draft general budget (document P8_TA (2017) 0458, P8_TA-PROV (2017) 0458 in its provisional version) and the act by which, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 314(9) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament declared that the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018 had been definitively adopted; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the agenda of the plenary session of the European Parliament of Wednesday 29 November 2017 (document P8_OJ (2017) 11-29), in so far as it includes debates on the joint text on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018, the agenda of the session of Thursday 30 November 2017 (document P8_OJ (2017) 11-30), in so far as it includes a vote followed by explanations of votes on the joint text on the draft general budget, the European Parliament legislative resolution of 30 November 2017 on the joint text on the draft general budget (document P8_TA (2017) 0458, P8_TA-PROV (2017) 0458 in its provisional version) and the act by which, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 314(9) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament declared that the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018 had been definitively adopted;

| — | maintain the effects of the act by which the President of the European Parliament declared that the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018 had been definitively adopted until that budget is definitively adopted by an act in conformity with the Treaties within a reasonable period of time after the date of judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

maintain the effects of the act by which the President of the European Parliament declared that the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018 had been definitively adopted until that budget is definitively adopted by an act in conformity with the Treaties within a reasonable period of time after the date of judgment;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the French Government requests the annulment of four acts adopted by the European Parliament in the context of the exercise of its budgetary powers, during the additional plenary session which took place on 29 and 30 November in Brussels.

The first and second acts which the French Government seeks to have annulled are agendas of sessions of the European Parliament of Wednesday 29 and Thursday 30 November 2017, in so far as they make provision respectively for plenary debates on the joint text on the draft general budget for the financial year 2018 and a vote followed by explanations of votes on that joint text on the draft general budget.

The third contested act is the European Parliament legislative resolution of 30 November 2017 on the joint text on the draft general budget.

Lastly, the French Government requests annulment of the act by which, in accordance with Article 314(9) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament declared that the general budget for the financial year 2018 had been definitively adopted. As is apparent in particular from the agenda of the session of the European Parliament of Thursday 30 November 2017, it concerns the declaration of the President of the European Parliament followed by the latter’s signature of the general budget, which took place following the vote on the legislative resolution on the joint text on the draft general budget.

By its single plea in law, the French Government claims that the four contested acts should be annulled on the ground that they infringe Protocol No 6 annexed to the TEU and the TFEU and Protocol No 3 annexed to the ECSC Treaty, which relate to the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, agencies and departments of the European Union.

It follows both from the protocols on the seat of the institutions and the case-law of the Court that the European Parliament may not exercise the budgetary powers conferred upon it by Article 314 TFEU during additional plenary sessions held in Brussels, but must exercise them during ordinary plenary sessions held in Strasbourg.

However, in so far as the lawfulness of the contested act of the President of the European Parliament is disputed, not as a result of its purpose or contents, but solely because that act should have been adopted during an ordinary plenary session in Strasbourg, the need to ensure the continuity of the European public service together with important considerations of legal certainty justify, in the view of the French Government, the maintenance of the legal effects of that act until the adoption of a new act compatible with the treaties.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/7

---

Appeal brought on 22 June 2018 by Anthony Andrew King against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2018 in Case T-810/17: King v Commission

(Case C-412/18 P)

(2019/C 44/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Anthony Andrew King (represented by: P. McKenna, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 22 November 2018 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 23 August 2018 — Dong Yang Electronics Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-547/18)

(2019/C 44/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dong Yang Electronics Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

Questions referred

| 1. | Can it be inferred, from the mere fact that a company established outside the European Union has a subsidiary in the territory of Poland, that a fixed establishment exists in Poland within the meaning of Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and Article 11(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax? (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can it be inferred, from the mere fact that a company established outside the European Union has a subsidiary in the territory of Poland, that a fixed establishment exists in Poland within the meaning of Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and Article 11(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax? (2)

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative, is a third party required to examine contractual relationships between a company established outside the European Union and its subsidiary in order to determine whether the former company has a fixed establishment in Poland? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, is a third party required to examine contractual relationships between a company established outside the European Union and its subsidiary in order to determine whether the former company has a fixed establishment in Poland?

---

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

(2)  OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 3 September 2018 — City of Łowicz v State Treasury — Governor of Łódź Province

(Case C-558/18)

(2019/C 44/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: City of Łowicz

Defendant: State Treasury — Governor of Łódź Province

Question referred

On a proper construction of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, does the resulting obligation for Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law preclude provisions which materially increase the risk of undermining the guarantee of independent disciplinary proceedings against judges in Poland through:

| (1) | political influence on the conduct of disciplinary proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

political influence on the conduct of disciplinary proceedings;

| (2) | the emerging risk that the system of disciplinary measures will be used to politically control the content of judicial decisions; and |
| --- | --- |

(2)

the emerging risk that the system of disciplinary measures will be used to politically control the content of judicial decisions; and

| (3) | the possibility of evidence obtained by illegal means being used in disciplinary proceedings against judges? |
| --- | --- |

(3)

the possibility of evidence obtained by illegal means being used in disciplinary proceedings against judges?

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 5 September 2018 — Criminal proceedings against VX, WW and XV

(Case C-563/18)

(2019/C 44/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

VX, WW and XV

Question referred

On a proper construction of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, does the resulting obligation for Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law preclude provisions which remove the guarantee of independent disciplinary proceedings against judges in Poland by permitting disciplinary proceedings to be conducted under political influence, giving rise to a risk that the system of disciplinary measures will be used to politically control the content of judicial decisions?

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 20 September 2018 — A. K. v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

(Case C-585/18)

(2019/C 44/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A. K.

Respondent: Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary)

Questions referred

| 1. | On a proper construction of the third subparagraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights], is a newly-created chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which has jurisdiction to hear an appeal by a national court judge and which is composed exclusively of judges selected by a national body tasked with safeguarding the independence of the courts (the National Council of the Judiciary), which, having regard to the systemic model for the way in which it is formed and the way in which it operates, is not guaranteed to be independent from the legislative and executive authorities, an independent court or tribunal within the meaning of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On a proper construction of the third subparagraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights], is a newly-created chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which has jurisdiction to hear an appeal by a national court judge and which is composed exclusively of judges selected by a national body tasked with safeguarding the independence of the courts (the National Council of the Judiciary), which, having regard to the systemic model for the way in which it is formed and the way in which it operates, is not guaranteed to be independent from the legislative and executive authorities, an independent court or tribunal within the meaning of EU law?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is negative, should the third subparagraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights], be interpreted as meaning that a chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which does not have jurisdiction in the case but meets the requirements of EU law for a court seised with an appeal in an EU case should disregard the provisions of national legislation which preclude it from having jurisdiction in that case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is negative, should the third subparagraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights], be interpreted as meaning that a chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which does not have jurisdiction in the case but meets the requirements of EU law for a court seised with an appeal in an EU case should disregard the provisions of national legislation which preclude it from having jurisdiction in that case?

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 October 2018 — CP v Sąd Najwyższy

(Case C-624/18)

(2019/C 44/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: CP

Respondent: Sąd Najwyższy

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) ..., be interpreted as meaning that, where an appeal is brought before a court of last instance in a Member State against an alleged infringement of the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age in respect of a judge of that court, together with a motion for granting security in respect of the reported claim, that court — in order to protect the rights arising from EU law by ordering an interim measure provided for under national law — must refuse to apply national provisions which confer jurisdiction, in the case in which the appeal was lodged, on an organisational unit of that court which is not operational by reason of a failure to appoint judges adjudicating within it? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) ..., be interpreted as meaning that, where an appeal is brought before a court of last instance in a Member State against an alleged infringement of the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age in respect of a judge of that court, together with a motion for granting security in respect of the reported claim, that court — in order to protect the rights arising from EU law by ordering an interim measure provided for under national law — must refuse to apply national provisions which confer jurisdiction, in the case in which the appeal was lodged, on an organisational unit of that court which is not operational by reason of a failure to appoint judges adjudicating within it?

| 2. | In the event that judges are appointed to adjudicate within the organisational unit having jurisdiction under national law to hear and determine the action brought, on a proper construction of the third subparagraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is a newly-created chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which has jurisdiction to hear the case of a national court judge at first or second instance and which is composed exclusively of judges selected by a national body tasked with safeguarding the independence of the courts, namely the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), which, having regard to the systemic model for the way in which it is formed and the way in which it operates, is not guaranteed to be independent from the legislative and executive authorities, an independent court or tribunal within the meaning of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that judges are appointed to adjudicate within the organisational unit having jurisdiction under national law to hear and determine the action brought, on a proper construction of the third subparagraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is a newly-created chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which has jurisdiction to hear the case of a national court judge at first or second instance and which is composed exclusively of judges selected by a national body tasked with safeguarding the independence of the courts, namely the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), which, having regard to the systemic model for the way in which it is formed and the way in which it operates, is not guaranteed to be independent from the legislative and executive authorities, an independent court or tribunal within the meaning of EU law?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is negative, should the third subparagraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which does not have jurisdiction in the case but meets the requirements of EU law for a court seised with an appeal in an EU case should disregard the provisions of national legislation which preclude it from having jurisdiction in that case? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is negative, should the third subparagraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which does not have jurisdiction in the case but meets the requirements of EU law for a court seised with an appeal in an EU case should disregard the provisions of national legislation which preclude it from having jurisdiction in that case?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 October 2018 — DO v Sąd Najwyższy

(Case C-625/18)

(2019/C 44/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: DO

Respondent: Sąd Najwyższy

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where an appeal is brought before a court of last instance in a Member State against an alleged infringement of the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age in respect of a judge of that court, together with a motion for granting security in respect of the reported claim, that court — in order to protect the rights arising from EU law by ordering an interim measure provided for under national law — must refuse to apply national provisions which confer jurisdiction, in the case in which the appeal was lodged, on an organisational unit of that court which is not operational by reason of a failure to appoint judges adjudicating within it? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where an appeal is brought before a court of last instance in a Member State against an alleged infringement of the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age in respect of a judge of that court, together with a motion for granting security in respect of the reported claim, that court — in order to protect the rights arising from EU law by ordering an interim measure provided for under national law — must refuse to apply national provisions which confer jurisdiction, in the case in which the appeal was lodged, on an organisational unit of that court which is not operational by reason of a failure to appoint judges adjudicating within it?

| 2. | In the event that judges are appointed to adjudicate within the organisational unit having jurisdiction under national law to hear and determine the action brought, on a proper construction of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is a newly-created chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which has jurisdiction to hear the case of a national court judge at first or second instance and which is composed exclusively of judges selected by a national body tasked with safeguarding the independence of the courts, namely the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), which, having regard to the systemic model for the way in which it is formed and the way in which it operates, is not guaranteed to be independent from the legislative and executive authorities, an independent court or tribunal within the meaning of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that judges are appointed to adjudicate within the organisational unit having jurisdiction under national law to hear and determine the action brought, on a proper construction of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is a newly-created chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which has jurisdiction to hear the case of a national court judge at first or second instance and which is composed exclusively of judges selected by a national body tasked with safeguarding the independence of the courts, namely the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), which, having regard to the systemic model for the way in which it is formed and the way in which it operates, is not guaranteed to be independent from the legislative and executive authorities, an independent court or tribunal within the meaning of EU law?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is negative, should the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which does not have jurisdiction in the case but which meets the requirements of EU law for a court seised with an appeal in an EU case, should disregard the provisions of national legislation which preclude it from having jurisdiction in that case? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is negative, should the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which does not have jurisdiction in the case but which meets the requirements of EU law for a court seised with an appeal in an EU case, should disregard the provisions of national legislation which preclude it from having jurisdiction in that case?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 October 2018 — Unitel Sp. z o.o. w Warszawie v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Case C-653/18)

(2019/C 44/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

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

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

Questions referred

| 1. | In the light of Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and of the principles of taxation of consumption, neutrality and proportionality, should the correct national practice be to apply an exemption with the right to deduct (which in Poland means application of a 0 % rate) in each case where both of the following conditions are met:






  (a) | the goods have been exported to an unidentified recipient outside the European Union; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

In the light of Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and of the principles of taxation of consumption, neutrality and proportionality, should the correct national practice be to apply an exemption with the right to deduct (which in Poland means application of a 0 % rate) in each case where both of the following conditions are met:

(a)

the goods have been exported to an unidentified recipient outside the European Union; and

| (b) | there is clear evidence that the goods have left the territory of the European Union, and this is not disputed? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

there is clear evidence that the goods have left the territory of the European Union, and this is not disputed?

| 2. | Do the provisions of Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Directive 2006/112/EC and the principles of taxation of consumption, neutrality and proportionality preclude a national practice whereby it is assumed that no supply of goods has taken place in the case where the goods have been indubitably exported outside the territory of the European Union, and following their exportation the tax authorities establish in the course of their investigation that the person actually acquiring the goods was not the entity to whom the taxable person issued the invoice documenting the supply, but was another entity unidentified by the authorities, as a result of which the authorities refuse to exempt such a transaction from tax with the right to deduct (which in Poland means application of a 0 % rate)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the provisions of Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Directive 2006/112/EC and the principles of taxation of consumption, neutrality and proportionality preclude a national practice whereby it is assumed that no supply of goods has taken place in the case where the goods have been indubitably exported outside the territory of the European Union, and following their exportation the tax authorities establish in the course of their investigation that the person actually acquiring the goods was not the entity to whom the taxable person issued the invoice documenting the supply, but was another entity unidentified by the authorities, as a result of which the authorities refuse to exempt such a transaction from tax with the right to deduct (which in Poland means application of a 0 % rate)?

| 3. | In the light of Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Directive 2006/112/EC and of the principles of taxation of consumption, neutrality and proportionality, should the correct national practice be to apply the domestic rate to the supply of goods where there is clear evidence that the goods have left the territory of the European Union, but the authorities, in the absence of an identified recipient, conclude that no supply of goods has taken place, or should it rather be assumed that no taxable transaction for VAT purposes has taken place at all in those circumstances and therefore that the taxable person is not entitled to deduct input VAT on the purchase of the exported goods under Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the light of Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Directive 2006/112/EC and of the principles of taxation of consumption, neutrality and proportionality, should the correct national practice be to apply the domestic rate to the supply of goods where there is clear evidence that the goods have left the territory of the European Union, but the authorities, in the absence of an identified recipient, conclude that no supply of goods has taken place, or should it rather be assumed that no taxable transaction for VAT purposes has taken place at all in those circumstances and therefore that the taxable person is not entitled to deduct input VAT on the purchase of the exported goods under Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC?

---

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

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 October 2018 — BP v UNIPARTS sàrl, having its registered office in Nyon

(Case C-668/18)

(2019/C 44/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: BP

Defendant: UNIPARTS sàrl, having its registered office in Nyon

Questions referred

| 1. | Should the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with the third sentence of Article 4(3) TEU and Article 2 TEU, the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the irremovability of judges, forming part of the principle of effective judicial protection and of the principle of the rule of law, is infringed in every case where a national legislature lowers the retirement age for judges of the court of last instance in a Member State (for example, from 70 to 65 years) and applies the new lower retirement age to judges in active service, without leaving the decision on whether to take advantage of the lower retirement age to the sole discretion of the judge concerned? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with the third sentence of Article 4(3) TEU and Article 2 TEU, the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the irremovability of judges, forming part of the principle of effective judicial protection and of the principle of the rule of law, is infringed in every case where a national legislature lowers the retirement age for judges of the court of last instance in a Member State (for example, from 70 to 65 years) and applies the new lower retirement age to judges in active service, without leaving the decision on whether to take advantage of the lower retirement age to the sole discretion of the judge concerned?

| 2. | Should the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with the third sentence of Article 4(3) TEU and Article 2 TEU, the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the rule of law and the standard of independence required to ensure effective judicial protection in cases involving EU law are infringed when a national legislature, in breach of the principle of the irremovability of judges, lowers the normal age at which a judge of the court of last instance in a Member State may hold a judicial post from 70 to 65 years, such that continuing in that post is dependent on the discretionary consent of an executive body? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with the third sentence of Article 4(3) TEU and Article 2 TEU, the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the rule of law and the standard of independence required to ensure effective judicial protection in cases involving EU law are infringed when a national legislature, in breach of the principle of the irremovability of judges, lowers the normal age at which a judge of the court of last instance in a Member State may hold a judicial post from 70 to 65 years, such that continuing in that post is dependent on the discretionary consent of an executive body?

| 3. | Should Article 2, in conjunction with Article 6(1), of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) be interpreted as meaning that lowering the retirement age of judges of the court of last instance in a Member State, and making the possibility for an existing judge of that court who has reached the new lower retirement age to continue in his post dependent on the consent of an executive body, constitute discrimination on grounds of age? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Should Article 2, in conjunction with Article 6(1), of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) be interpreted as meaning that lowering the retirement age of judges of the court of last instance in a Member State, and making the possibility for an existing judge of that court who has reached the new lower retirement age to continue in his post dependent on the consent of an executive body, constitute discrimination on grounds of age?

| 4. | Should Articles 2, 9 and 11 of Directive 2000/78, in conjunction with Articles 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that in the case of discrimination on grounds of age of the judges of the court of final instance in a Member State, consisting in the lowering of the retirement age from the current 70 years to 65 years, that court — adjudicating in any case with the participation of a judge affected by the effects of such discriminatory national provisions who has not expressed a willingness to take advantage of the new retirement age — is required, when deciding the preliminary issue of the composition of the court, to refuse to apply national provisions that are contrary to Directive 2000/78 and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to continue to adjudicate with the participation of that judge where that is the only effective means of ensuring effective judicial protection of the rights of judges under EU law? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Should Articles 2, 9 and 11 of Directive 2000/78, in conjunction with Articles 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that in the case of discrimination on grounds of age of the judges of the court of final instance in a Member State, consisting in the lowering of the retirement age from the current 70 years to 65 years, that court — adjudicating in any case with the participation of a judge affected by the effects of such discriminatory national provisions who has not expressed a willingness to take advantage of the new retirement age — is required, when deciding the preliminary issue of the composition of the court, to refuse to apply national provisions that are contrary to Directive 2000/78 and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to continue to adjudicate with the participation of that judge where that is the only effective means of ensuring effective judicial protection of the rights of judges under EU law?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 6 November 2018 — World Comm Trading Gfz SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

(Case C-684/18)

(2019/C 44/18)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: World Comm Trading Gfz SRL

Respondents: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of VAT neutrality (1) preclude national legislation (or an administrative practice based on unclear legislation) which denies an undertaking the right to deduct VAT in proportion to the value of a discount applied to national supplies of goods on the ground that the tax invoice issued by the intra-Community supplier (as representative of an economic group) shows the global discount granted for both intra-Community and domestic products supplied under the same framework agreement but recorded as purchased from the Member State of reference (from one member of the group, with a different VAT number from that borne by the invoice relating to the discount)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of VAT neutrality (1) preclude national legislation (or an administrative practice based on unclear legislation) which denies an undertaking the right to deduct VAT in proportion to the value of a discount applied to national supplies of goods on the ground that the tax invoice issued by the intra-Community supplier (as representative of an economic group) shows the global discount granted for both intra-Community and domestic products supplied under the same framework agreement but recorded as purchased from the Member State of reference (from one member of the group, with a different VAT number from that borne by the invoice relating to the discount)?

| 2. | In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, does the principle of proportionality mean that the beneficiary cannot be denied the right to deduct VAT in proportion to the value of the discount granted globally by the intra-Community supplier in the case where the local supplier (a member of the same group) has ceased its economic activity and can no longer reduce the taxable amount of the supplies by issuing an invoice bearing its own VAT number, for the purpose of reimbursement of the excess VAT collected? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, does the principle of proportionality mean that the beneficiary cannot be denied the right to deduct VAT in proportion to the value of the discount granted globally by the intra-Community supplier in the case where the local supplier (a member of the same group) has ceased its economic activity and can no longer reduce the taxable amount of the supplies by issuing an invoice bearing its own VAT number, for the purpose of reimbursement of the excess VAT collected?

---

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

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Špecializovaný trestný súd (Slovakia) lodged on 14 November 2018 — Criminal proceedings against UL and VM

(Case C-709/18)

(2019/C 44/19)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Špecializovaný trestný súd

Parties to the main proceedings

UL and VM

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the rule of the presumption of innocence — enshrined in Articles 3 and 4, read in conjunction with recital 16, of Directive (EU) 2016/343 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings — observed where a co-defendant in joint criminal proceedings, on the basis of the indictment and after the commencement of the main hearing, denies participation in the act or acts alleged against him, declaring himself to be innocent, and, subsequently, the court, by means of an order which contains no description of the act or its legal qualification or any assessment on the court’s part, decides to accept the declaration of another co-defendant that he is guilty of committing one or more of the acts described in the indictment, thus waiving his right to the taking of evidence regarding his guilt, and, subsequently, after the taking of evidence at the main hearing, the court reaches its decision on the indictment in a joint judgment?






  1.1 | Where the decision of a court to accept the declaration of guilt of one co-defendant denotes another co-defendant — who has denied guilt — as being guilty, before evidence is taken which proves him to be guilty, is that manner of proceeding in accordance with Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is the rule of the presumption of innocence — enshrined in Articles 3 and 4, read in conjunction with recital 16, of Directive (EU) 2016/343 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings — observed where a co-defendant in joint criminal proceedings, on the basis of the indictment and after the commencement of the main hearing, denies participation in the act or acts alleged against him, declaring himself to be innocent, and, subsequently, the court, by means of an order which contains no description of the act or its legal qualification or any assessment on the court’s part, decides to accept the declaration of another co-defendant that he is guilty of committing one or more of the acts described in the indictment, thus waiving his right to the taking of evidence regarding his guilt, and, subsequently, after the taking of evidence at the main hearing, the court reaches its decision on the indictment in a joint judgment?

1.1

Where the decision of a court to accept the declaration of guilt of one co-defendant denotes another co-defendant — who has denied guilt — as being guilty, before evidence is taken which proves him to be guilty, is that manner of proceeding in accordance with Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

| 2. | Is it consistent with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — which enshrines the right to a fair trial and the right of every person to have his case dealt with fairly by an independent and impartial tribunal — where, in joint proceedings on a common indictment against several defendants, the lawful judge decides at the beginning of the proceedings, by means of an order which contains no description of the act or its legal qualification or any assessment on the court’s part, to accept the declaration of guilt of certain defendants, who thus waive their right to the taking of evidence regarding their guilt, and, subsequently, after the taking of evidence at the main hearing, on the basis of the indictment, then decides the cases of all the defendants?






  2.1 | Where a decision to accept the declaration of guilt of a co-defendant gives rise to a well-founded doubt regarding the impartiality of the court which accepted that declaration, is the possible disqualification of that court from dealing with the case an appropriate measure to safeguard the rule of the presumption of innocence as required by Article 4(2) of Directive 2016/343? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Is it consistent with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — which enshrines the right to a fair trial and the right of every person to have his case dealt with fairly by an independent and impartial tribunal — where, in joint proceedings on a common indictment against several defendants, the lawful judge decides at the beginning of the proceedings, by means of an order which contains no description of the act or its legal qualification or any assessment on the court’s part, to accept the declaration of guilt of certain defendants, who thus waive their right to the taking of evidence regarding their guilt, and, subsequently, after the taking of evidence at the main hearing, on the basis of the indictment, then decides the cases of all the defendants?

2.1

Where a decision to accept the declaration of guilt of a co-defendant gives rise to a well-founded doubt regarding the impartiality of the court which accepted that declaration, is the possible disqualification of that court from dealing with the case an appropriate measure to safeguard the rule of the presumption of innocence as required by Article 4(2) of Directive 2016/343?

| 3. | Are the values of equality and of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, signed in Maastricht on 7 February 1992, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007, the principle of the equality of citizens before judicial authorities under Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union and the general EU-law principle which establishes the right of every person to have his case heard fairly, pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union, safeguarded in a situation in which a national court against whose decisions there is no right of appeal adopts a decision in a manner inconsistent with an opinion on unification of the interpretation of the law of a national court which has been adopted by that court on the basis of the mandate conferred on it by national legislation to unify the interpretation of the law and other normative acts of general application where that is necessary in order to resolve inconsistencies in case-law or where one chamber of the Supreme Court has departed from a legal opinion contained in a decision of another chamber of the Supreme Court? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the values of equality and of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, signed in Maastricht on 7 February 1992, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007, the principle of the equality of citizens before judicial authorities under Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union and the general EU-law principle which establishes the right of every person to have his case heard fairly, pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union, safeguarded in a situation in which a national court against whose decisions there is no right of appeal adopts a decision in a manner inconsistent with an opinion on unification of the interpretation of the law of a national court which has been adopted by that court on the basis of the mandate conferred on it by national legislation to unify the interpretation of the law and other normative acts of general application where that is necessary in order to resolve inconsistencies in case-law or where one chamber of the Supreme Court has departed from a legal opinion contained in a decision of another chamber of the Supreme Court?

---

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

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 22 November 2018 — Anton van Zantbeek VOF; other party: Ministerraad

(Case C-725/18)

(2019/C 44/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anton van Zantbeek VOF

Other party: Ministerraad

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which introduces a tax on stock exchange transactions, as referred to in Articles 120 and 1262 of the Belgian Wetboek diverse rechten en taksen (Code of miscellaneous duties and taxes), and which results in the Belgian issuer of an order becoming liable for that tax in the case where the professional intermediary is established outside Belgium? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which introduces a tax on stock exchange transactions, as referred to in Articles 120 and 1262 of the Belgian Wetboek diverse rechten en taksen (Code of miscellaneous duties and taxes), and which results in the Belgian issuer of an order becoming liable for that tax in the case where the professional intermediary is established outside Belgium?

| 2. | Should Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which introduces a tax on stock exchange transactions, as referred to in Articles 120 and 1262 of the Belgian Wetboek diverse rechten en taksen, and which results in the Belgian issuer of an order becoming liable for that tax in the case where the professional intermediary is established outside Belgium? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which introduces a tax on stock exchange transactions, as referred to in Articles 120 and 1262 of the Belgian Wetboek diverse rechten en taksen, and which results in the Belgian issuer of an order becoming liable for that tax in the case where the professional intermediary is established outside Belgium?

| 3. | If, on the basis of the reply to the first or second question referred for a preliminary ruling, the Grondwettelijk Hof were to conclude that the contested articles infringe one or more of the obligations arising from the provisions cited in those questions, could it temporarily continue to enforce the effects of Articles 120 and 1262 of the Belgian Wetboek diverse rechten en taksen in order to prevent legal uncertainty and to enable the legislature to bring those provisions into conformity with those obligations? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If, on the basis of the reply to the first or second question referred for a preliminary ruling, the Grondwettelijk Hof were to conclude that the contested articles infringe one or more of the obligations arising from the provisions cited in those questions, could it temporarily continue to enforce the effects of Articles 120 and 1262 of the Belgian Wetboek diverse rechten en taksen in order to prevent legal uncertainty and to enable the legislature to bring those provisions into conformity with those obligations?

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 26 November 2018 — IZ v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-735/18)

(2019/C 44/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: IZ

Defendant: Ryanair DAC

Questions referred

The request for a preliminary ruling relating to the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, (1) is worded as follows:

| — | Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, be interpreted as meaning that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, is to be regarded as an event inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier and, accordingly, cannot be classified as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ exonerating the air carrier from its obligation to compensate passengers in the case where a flight operated by the aircraft concerned is cancelled? |
| --- | --- |

—

Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, be interpreted as meaning that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, is to be regarded as an event inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier and, accordingly, cannot be classified as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ exonerating the air carrier from its obligation to compensate passengers in the case where a flight operated by the aircraft concerned is cancelled?

| — | If an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, is to be regarded as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, must it be inferred from this that, for the air carrier, this is an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken? |
| --- | --- |

—

If an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, is to be regarded as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, must it be inferred from this that, for the air carrier, this is an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken?

| — | Must the fact that the strike was announced be regarded as having the effect that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91? |
| --- | --- |

—

Must the fact that the strike was announced be regarded as having the effect that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91?

| — | Having regard to recital 15 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, must it be found that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, constituted, for the air carrier, an extraordinary circumstance which could not have been avoided and entitled that carrier, as a reasonable measure in order to avoid further cancellations, to take the decision to cancel the flight at issue so as to avoid a situation in which its crews would no longer be able to operate other flights on the day of the strike, thereby minimising overall the disruption and inconvenience caused by the strike to its passengers as a whole? |
| --- | --- |

—

Having regard to recital 15 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, must it be found that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, constituted, for the air carrier, an extraordinary circumstance which could not have been avoided and entitled that carrier, as a reasonable measure in order to avoid further cancellations, to take the decision to cancel the flight at issue so as to avoid a situation in which its crews would no longer be able to operate other flights on the day of the strike, thereby minimising overall the disruption and inconvenience caused by the strike to its passengers as a whole?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/17

---

Appeal brought on 27 November 2018 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2018 in Case T-627/16, Czech Republic v Commission

(Case C-742/18 P)

(2019/C 44/22)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, O. Serdula, J. Vláčil, J. Pavliš, agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden

Re:

Appeal in cassation against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union dated 13 September 2018 in Case T-627/16, Czech Republic v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed in part the Czech Republic’s application for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 (1) of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2016) 3753), so far as concerns the part excluding expenditure by the Czech Republic.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside point 2 of the operative part of the General Court’s judgment in Case T-627/16 and the corresponding part of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside point 2 of the operative part of the General Court’s judgment in Case T-627/16 and the corresponding part of the judgment;

| — | annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1059 in so far as it excludes expenditure amounting to EUR 462 517,83 in connection with the single area payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1059 in so far as it excludes expenditure amounting to EUR 462 517,83 in connection with the single area payment;

| — | annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1059 in so far as it excludes expenditure amounting to EUR 636 516,20 in connection with investments in the wine sector; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1059 in so far as it excludes expenditure amounting to EUR 636 516,20 in connection with investments in the wine sector; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds in support of its appeal in cassation.

The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (2) in conjunction with Articles 26 and 31 of Regulation No 1122/2009. (3) The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that on-the-spot checks in the form of remote sensing and classical on-the-spot checks must have the same or a comparable error rate. Such a requirement is not apparent from any provision of EU law or from the nature of the inspection methods concerned. On the contrary, the method of selecting samples for inspection differs so much in respect of both methods, for reasons particular to those methods, that conclusions as to their effectiveness cannot be rendered conditional on the same or a comparable error rate.

The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 in conjunction with Article 33 of Regulation No 1122/2009. The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that if over-declaration at the rate of 3 % of the area determined has been identified, the sample inspected must in all circumstances be increased until no over-declaration is identified, even in the situation where the national authorities may be certain, on the basis of the specific circumstances of the case in question, that, in the other parcels of the farmer concerned, no further errors may be expected in the declaration of the agricultural area.

The third ground of appeal is based on infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 in conjunction with Article 112 of Regulation No 1605/2002, (4) or as the case may be Article 130 of Regulation No 966/2012. (5) The Tribunal grossly distorted the substance of the dispute between the Czech Republic and the Commission, and erred in law when it concluded that the correction imposed was exclusively connected with the retroactive financing of the investments made prior to the implementation of the national programme of support. In connection with the investigation concerned the Commission took issue with any retroactive financing of investments in the wine sector. The Tribunal therefore erred when it failed to address in any way the Czech Republic’s arguments that the retroactive financing of investments made after the approval of the national programme of support was in accordance with EU law.

The fourth ground of appeal is based on infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 in conjunction with Article 19 and Article 77 of Regulation No 555/2008 (6) and Article 27 of Regulation No 1975/2006, (7) or as the case may be Article 25 of Regulation No 65/2011. (8) The applicant claims that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that at the material time 100 % of the investments made in the wine sector should have been subject to on-the-spot checks, despite the fact that Article 77(5) of Regulation No 555/2008, through the express reference to Article 27 of Regulation No 1975/2006, allowed checks to be carried out on a sample only of the investments made.

---

(1)  OJ 2016 L 173, p. 59.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.

(3)  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.

(4)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1.

(5)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1.

(6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector, OJ 2008 L 170, p. 1.

(7)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures, OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74.

(8)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures, OJ 2011 L 25, p. 8.

---

General Court

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Saleh Thabet and Others v Council

(Cases T-274/16 and T-275/16) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt - Freezing of funds - Objectives - Criteria for inclusion of persons targeted - Renewal of the applicants’ designation on the list of persons targeted - Factual basis - Plea of illegality - Legal basis - Proportionality - Right to a fair trial - Presumption of innocence - Principle of good administration - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection))

(2019/C 44/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant in Case T-274/16: Suzanne Saleh Thabet (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, G. Martin, M. Rushton and C. Enderby Smith, Solicitors)

Applicants in Case T-275/16: Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo), Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo), Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh (Cairo), Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal (Cairo) (represented by: B. Kennelly, J. Pobjoy, G. Martin, M. Rushton and C. Enderby Smith)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: S. Kyriakopoulou and M. Veiga, and subsequently by S. Kyriakopoulou and J. Kneale, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 of 18 March 2016 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2016 L 74, p. 40); (ii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/496 of 21 March 2017 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2017 L 76, p. 22); and (iii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/491 of 21 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2017 L 76, p. 10), in so far as those acts apply to the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders that Cases T-274/16 and T-275/16 be joined for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders that Cases T-274/16 and T-275/16 be joined for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders Ms Suzanne Saleh Thabet, Mr Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Mr Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Ms Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh and Ms Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ms Suzanne Saleh Thabet, Mr Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Mr Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Ms Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh and Ms Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — VG v Commission

(Joined Cases T-314/16 and T-435/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents and information relating to a decision of the Commission to put an end to a ‘letter of agreement and membership of Team Europe’ - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the protection of individuals - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Refusal of transfer - Articles 7, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Non-contractual liability))

(2019/C 44/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VG, as the sole heir of Ms (represented initially by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, and subsequently by: L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Simon, and subsequently by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 2 February and 19 April 2016 rejecting MS’ application for access to the documents concerning him and of 16 June 2016 rejecting his request to transfer to him the personal data concerning him contained in the documents covered by that application for access and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by Ms on account of that refusal of access and transfer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 16 June 2016 rejecting MS’ request to transfer to him certain personal data; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 16 June 2016 rejecting MS’ request to transfer to him certain personal data;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay VG, as the sole heir of MS, a sum of EUR 5 000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay VG, as the sole heir of MS, a sum of EUR 5 000;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders VG and the Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders VG and the Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma v Commission and EMA

(Case T-329/16) (1)

((Medicinal products for human use - Orphan medicinal products - Decision withdrawing the designation of Elotuzumab as an orphan medicinal product - Decision that the designation criteria were no longer met - Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use Empliciti (Elotuzumab) - Article 5(12)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 - Article 5(8) of Regulation No 141/2000 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2019/C 44/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma EEIG (Uxbridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Bogaert and B. Van Vooren, lawyers, and B. Kelly, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and K. Petersen, acting as Agents) and European Medicines Agency (represented by: N. Rampal Olmedo, M. Tovar Gomis, T. Jabłoński and S. Drosos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of an act adopted by the Commission removing Elotuzumab from the Community Register of orphan medicinal products for human use and/or of a possible act adopted by the Commission or the EMA determining that Elotuzumab no longer met the criteria for designation as an orphan medicinal product when the marketing authorisation was granted for the medicinal product Empliciti (Elotuzumab) under Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-459/16) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Deficiencies in the IACS - Permanent pastures - Risk for the fund - Document VI/5330/97 - Article 73a(2a) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Article 81(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 - Flat-rate corrections of 25 % and 10 %))

(2019/C 44/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: D. Triantafyllou, then by: I. Galindo Martín, N. Ruiz García and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 173, p. 59).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it concerns the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain and in so far as it imposes






  — | a flat-rate correction of 25 % regarding wooded grazing pastures for the claim years 2010 to 2013; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it concerns the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain and in so far as it imposes

—

a flat-rate correction of 25 % regarding wooded grazing pastures for the claim years 2010 to 2013; and

| — | a flat-rate correction of 10 % regarding shrub pastures declared by the ‘rearers’ for the claim years 2010 to 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

a flat-rate correction of 10 % regarding shrub pastures declared by the ‘rearers’ for the claim years 2010 to 2013;

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

2)

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3)

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Janoha and Others v Commission

(Case T-517/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 - Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - New provisions relating to the days of leave granted applicable to officials posted in a third country - Objection of illegality - Second paragraph of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations - Articles 7 and 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Equal treatment - Acquired rights - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Misuse of powers))

(2019/C 44/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Andrea Janoha (Christ Church, Barbados) and the other five applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decisions reducing the number of the applicants’ days of annual leave as of 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Andrea Janoha and the other members of the contract staff of the European Commission whose names are set out in the annex, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay those incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Andrea Janoha and the other members of the contract staff of the European Commission whose names are set out in the annex, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay those incurred by the Commission;

| 3. | Declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-86/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission

(Case T-518/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials and members of the contractual staff - Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 - Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - New provisions relating to annual leave applicable to officials posted in a third country - Objection of illegality - Purpose of annual leave))

(2019/C 44/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Francisco Carreras Sequeros (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) and the five other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by: G. Gattinara and A.-C. Simon, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and E. Taneva, Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, Agents),

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decisions reducing the number of days of annual leave of the applicants as from 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions reducing the number of days of annual leave for 2014 of Mr Francisco Carreras Sequeros and the other officials or members of staff of the European Commission whose names are annexed to the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions reducing the number of days of annual leave for 2014 of Mr Francisco Carreras Sequeros and the other officials or members of staff of the European Commission whose names are annexed to the judgment;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Francisco Carreras Sequeros and the other officials or members of staff of the Commission whose names are annexed to the judgment, and |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Francisco Carreras Sequeros and the other officials or members of staff of the Commission whose names are annexed to the judgment, and

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-88/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Schneider v EUIPO

(Case T-560/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Internal reorganisation of EUIPO’s services - Redeployment - Legal basis - Article 7 of the Staff Regulations - Interests of the service - Significant change in tasks - Equivalence of posts - Covert penalty - Misuse of powers - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons))

(2019/C 44/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gregor Schneider (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Executive Director of EUIPO of 2 October 2014 to redeploy the applicant from the International Cooperation and Legal Affairs Department to the Operations Department of EUIPO.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Gregor Schneider to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Gregor Schneider to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  C 328, 5.10.2015 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under case number F-116/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Janssen-Cases v Commission

(Case T-688/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Commission Mediator - Competent appointing authority - Delegation of powers - Procedure - Consultation of the Staff Committee - Liability))

(2019/C 44/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mercedes Janssen-Cases (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, and, subsequently, J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, and, subsequently, G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decision of 15 June 2016 appointing W as the Commission Mediator and the note of 16 June 2016 by which the Commission informed the applicant of the result of the selection procedure and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 15 June 2016 appointing W as the Commission Mediator and the note of 16 June 2016 by which the Commission informed Ms Mercedes Janssen-Cases of the result of the selection procedure for that post; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 15 June 2016 appointing W as the Commission Mediator and the note of 16 June 2016 by which the Commission informed Ms Mercedes Janssen-Cases of the result of the selection procedure for that post;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.

---

(1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — ARFEA v Commission

(Case T-720/16) (1)

((State aid - Retroactive public service compensation granted by the Italian authorities - Regional bus transport service provided between 1997 and 1998 on the basis of concessions - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Altmark judgment - Temporal application of rules of substantive law))

(2019/C 44/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Aziende reunite filovie ed autolinee Srl (ARFEA) (Alexandria, Italy) (represented by: M. Chiti, V. Angiolini and L. Formilan, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2084 of 10 June 2016 concerning State Aid SA.38132 (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) — additional PSO compensation for ARFEA (OJ 2016 L 321, p. 57).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | Aziende reunite filovie ed autolinee Srl (ARFEA) is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Aziende reunite filovie ed autolinee Srl (ARFEA) is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Di Bernardo v Commission

(Case T-811/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Competition notice - Open competition - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Obligation to state reasons - Professional experience - Liability))

(2019/C 44/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Danilo Di Bernardo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in the open competition on the basis of tests EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 of 10 August 2016 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for the recruitment of secretaries/clerks at grade SC 1 in the field of financial support and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the selection board in the open competition on the basis of tests EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 of 10 August 2016 not to include Mr Danilo Di Bernardo on the reserve list for the recruitment of secretaries/clerks at grade SC 1 in the field of financial support; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the selection board in the open competition on the basis of tests EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 of 10 August 2016 not to include Mr Danilo Di Bernardo on the reserve list for the recruitment of secretaries/clerks at grade SC 1 in the field of financial support;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament

(Case T-829/16) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Decision declaring ineligible certain expenditure of a political party for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year - Right to good administration - Legal certainty - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 - Prohibition on the indirect financing of a national political party))

(2019/C 44/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Varaut, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 12 September 2016 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Falcon Technologies International v Commission

(Case T-875/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Evaluation report of a notified body within the meaning of the legislation on EC declarations of conformity of medical devices - Refusal of access - Exception relating to protection of commercial interests - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Overriding public interest - Partial refusal of access))

(2019/C 44/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Falcon Technologies International LLC (Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: R. Sciaudone and G. Arpea, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6722 final of 14 October 2016 refusing to grant the applicant access to the document (DG (Santé) 2015-7552.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 6722 final of 14 October 2016, in so far as it refused partial access to the document DG (Santé) 2015-7552; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 6722 final of 14 October 2016, in so far as it refused partial access to the document DG (Santé) 2015-7552;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Falcon Technologies International LLC and the European Commission each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Falcon Technologies International LLC and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-31/17) (1)

((EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Specific measures in favour of the outermost regions - Article 12(c) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 - Technical assistance - Inspection measures - Procedural guarantees - Legitimate expectations))

(2019/C 44/35)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and A. Tavares de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rechena and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 312, p. 26), in so far as it excludes from that financing in relation to the Portuguese Republic the amounts of EUR 460 202,73and of EUR 200 000 (Budget item 6701).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Sumner v Commission

(Case T-152/17) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning an infringement procedure brought by the Commission against Ireland - Refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption - Overriding public interest))

(2019/C 44/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Loreto Sumner (Leixlip, Ireland) (represented by: J. MacGuill and E. Martin-Vignerte, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented initially by: A. Joyce and L. Williams and subsequently by A. Joyce, M. Browne and G. Hodge, acting as Agents, and by A. Carroll, Barrister-at-Law)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 247 final of 13 January 2017 refusing access to documents relating to infringement procedure 2014/4131 brought against Ireland regarding the application of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Loreto Sumner to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Loreto Sumner to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2018 — Le Pen v Parliament

(Case T-161/17) (1)

((Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Power of the Secretary-General - Rights of the defence - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Misuse of power - Error of fact - Proportionality))

(2019/C 44/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marion Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: initially M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, then M. Ceccaldi, and lastly R. Bosselut, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 6 January 2017 concerning the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 41 554 unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, and of the debit note of 11 January 2017 relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Ms Marion Le Pen to bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Ms Marion Le Pen to bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Out of the blue v EUIPO — Dubois and MFunds USA (FUNNY BANDS)

(Case T-214/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark FUNNY BANDS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and A. Zarm, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl, J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Frédéric Dubois (Lasne, Belgium), MFunds USA LLC (Miami Beach, Florida, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2017 (Case R 1081/2016-2) concerning invalidity proceedings between Out of the blue, of the one part, and Frédéric Dubois and MFunds USA, of the other part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 January 2017 (Case R 1081/2016-2), in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division to reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU word mark FUNNY BANDS for ‘precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, not included in other classes; jewellery, jewellery; rings (jewellery); rings (jewellery); bracelets (jewellery); necklaces (jewellery); novelty key rings’ in Class 14, ‘rubber, gutta-percha, gum and products made of those materials, not included in other classes; flexible pipes, not of metal; rubber rings; unworked or semi-worked rubber; cords of rubber’ in Class 17 and ‘services of wholesale and retail of precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, jewellery, rings (jewellery), rings (jewellery), bracelets (jewellery), necklaces (jewellery), rubber, gutta-percha, gum and goods made from these materials, flexible pipes, not of metal’ in Class 35; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 January 2017 (Case R 1081/2016-2), in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division to reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU word mark FUNNY BANDS for ‘precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, not included in other classes; jewellery, jewellery; rings (jewellery); rings (jewellery); bracelets (jewellery); necklaces (jewellery); novelty key rings’ in Class 14, ‘rubber, gutta-percha, gum and products made of those materials, not included in other classes; flexible pipes, not of metal; rubber rings; unworked or semi-worked rubber; cords of rubber’ in Class 17 and ‘services of wholesale and retail of precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, jewellery, rings (jewellery), rings (jewellery), bracelets (jewellery), necklaces (jewellery), rubber, gutta-percha, gum and goods made from these materials, flexible pipes, not of metal’ in Class 35;

| 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 178, 6.6.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Campbell v Commission

(Case T-312/17) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning an infringement procedure brought by the Commission against the Republic of Lithuania - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption - Overriding public interest))

(2019/C 44/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Liam Campbell (Dundalk, Ireland) (represented by: J. MacGuill and E. Martin-Vignerte, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 2448 final of 7 April 2017 refusing access to documents relating to infringement procedure 2013/0406 against the Republic of Lithuania regarding the application of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ 2010 L 280, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Liam Campbell and the European Commission each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Liam Campbell and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Hebberecht v EEAS

(Case T-315/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - EEAS - Posting - Post of Head of Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia - Decision refusing to extend the posting - Interest of the service - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment))

(2019/C 44/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Chantal Hebberecht (Fourmies, France) (represented by B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EEAS communicated to the applicant on 3 February 2017 rejecting her complaint against the decision of the EEAS not to extend her posting as Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia and, second, compensation for non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 30 June 2016 refusing the request of Ms Chantal Hebberecht to extend her posting as Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia by one year. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 30 June 2016 refusing the request of Ms Chantal Hebberecht to extend her posting as Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia by one year.

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders the EEAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the EEAS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Bee-Fee Group (LV POWER ENERGY DRINK)

(Case T-372/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark LV POWER ENERGY DRINK - Earlier EU figurative mark LV - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark))

(2019/C 44/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bee-Fee Group Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: L. Karpierz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 (Case R 906/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Louis Vuitton Malletier and Bee-Fee Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 March 2017 (Case R 906/2016-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 March 2017 (Case R 906/2016-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier;

| 3. | Orders Bee-Fee Group Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Bee-Fee Group Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Fulia Trading (LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE)

(Case T-373/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE - Earlier EU figurative mark LV - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark))

(2019/C 44/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fulia Trading Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Karpierz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 (Case R 1567/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Louis Vuitton Malletier and Fulia Trading.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 March 2017 (Case R 1567/2016-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 March 2017 (Case R 1567/2016-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier;

| 3. | Orders Fulia Trading Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Fulia Trading Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino)

(Case T-416/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese - Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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: Papouis Dairies Ltd (Nicosia), (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2759/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2759/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2759/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies Ltd;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi;

| 3. | Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese)

(Case T-417/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese - Earlier United Kingdom certification word mark HALLOUMI - Rejection of the opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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: Papouis Dairies Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2650/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2650/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 April 2017 (Case R 2650/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies Ltd;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Cyprus; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Cyprus;

| 3. | Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Shindler and Others v Council

(Case T-458/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Institutional law - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU - Agreement setting out the arrangements for withdrawal - Article 50 TEU - Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom with a view to conclusion of that agreement - UK citizens residing in another EU Member State - Preparatory act - Act not open to challenge - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Harry Shindler (Porto d’Ascoli, Italy) and 12 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

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

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (EU, Euratom) of 22 May 2017 authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for an agreement setting out the arrangements for that Member State’s withdrawal from the European Union (document XT 21016/17), including the annex to that decision establishing directives for the negotiation of that agreement (document XT 21016/17 ADD 1 REV 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as being inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as being inadmissible.

| 2. | Declares that there is no longer any need to rule on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no longer any need to rule on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.

| 3. | Orders Mr Harry Shindler and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Harry Shindler and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — WL v ERCEA

(Case T-493/17) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Administrative inquiry - Extension of a probationary period - Preparatory act - Dismissal - Notification of dismissal by email - Time for bringing a complaint - Starting point - Inadmissibility - Compliance with essential procedural requirements - Dismissal decision at the end of the probationary period - Breach of the relationship of trust - Liability - Request for a hearing made in the application but not reiterated in accordance with Article 106(2) of the Rules of Procedure))

(2019/C 44/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: WL (represented by: F. Elia, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (represented by: F. Sgritta and M. Chacón Mohedano, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU, first, for annulment of the decision of the ERCEA to dismiss the applicant orally on 10 January 2017, with immediate restoration of the employment relationship, and for an order that the ERCEA pay all remuneration that has accrued in the interim, second, for annulment of the decision of the ERCEA of 28 October 2016 to extend the applicant’s probationary period and for a finding that that probationary period had ended as of 1 November 2016, third, for annulment of the measures taken pursuant to an administrative inquiry by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) and of the inquiry report dated 7 November 2016 and for an order that the ERCEA delete that inquiry from the Human Resource Management information system and from any other database of the EU institutions, fourth, for annulment of the dismissal decision of the ERCEA dated 22 December 2016, as notified to the applicant on 24 January 2017, immediate restoration of the employment relationship and an order that the ERCEA pay damages in compensation for harm suffered in the form of remuneration that has accrued between the date of dismissal and the date of delivery of the judgment or, failing reintegration into employment, an order that the ERCEA pay damages for loss of earnings until the date stipulated for the end of the contract, which amounts to EUR 39 000, and, fifth, in any event, for an order that the ERCEA pay the applicant in the amount of EUR 300 000 in damages or any other amount, greater or lesser, as the Court may deem appropriate, on account of the serious damage to the applicant’s image and to her personal and professional reputation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders WL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools (Spray gun for paint)

(Case T-651/17) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a paint spray gun - Earlier Community designs - Ground for invalidity - Informed user - Designer’s degree of freedom - Individual character - Saturation of the state of the art - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Expediency of oral proceedings - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Duty to state reasons - Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002))

(2019/C 44/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: K. Manhaeve and G. Glas, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 914/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools and Sata.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sata GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sata GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi)

(Case T-681/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ‘Khadi’ - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Mark containing badges, emblems or escutcheons - Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, M. Rajh and D. Walicka, and, subsequently, M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth and R. Briske, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2017 (Case R 2083/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Khadi and Villages Industries Commission and BNP Best Natural Products.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen)

(Case T-682/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark ‘khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen’ - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, M. Rajh and D. Walicka, and, subsequently, M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth and R. Briske, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 2085/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Khadi and Villages Industries Commission and BNP Best Natural Products.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda)

(Case T-683/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ‘Khadi Ayurveda’ - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, M. Rajh and D. Walicka, and, subsequently, M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth and R. Briske, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 2086/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Khadi and Villages Industries Commission and BNP Best Natural Products.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)

(Case T-702/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Papouis Halloumi - Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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: Papouis Dairies Ltd (Nicosia) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2017 (Case R 2782/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 August 2017 (Case R 2782/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 August 2017 (Case R 2782/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies Ltd;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi;

| 3. | Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)

(Case T-703/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Papouis Halloumi - Earlier United Kingdom certification word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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: Papouis Dairies Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2017 (Case R 2924/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 August 2017 (Case R 2924/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 August 2017 (Case R 2924/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies Ltd;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Cyprus; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Cyprus;

| 3. | Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — The Vianel Group v EUIPO — Viania Dessous (VIANEL)

(Case T-724/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VIANEL - Earlier EU word mark VIANIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Vianel Group LLC (Dover, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Perrichon, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Viania Dessous GmbH (Mössingen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2017 (Case R 285/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Viania Dessous and The Vianel Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders The Vianel Group LLC to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Vianel Group LLC to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Septona v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (welly)

(Case T-763/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark welly - Earlier EU figurative marks Kelly’s and Kelly’s www.kellys.eu CHIPS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Septona AVEE (Oinofyta, Greece) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 1525/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Intersnack Group and Septona.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 July 2017 (Case R 1525/2016-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 July 2017 (Case R 1525/2016-1);

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

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — H2O Plus v EUIPO (H 2 O+)

(Case T-824/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark H 2 O+ - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 44/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: H2O Plus LLC (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and F. Kerl, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 (Case R 499/2017-1), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark H 2 O+.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders H2O Plus LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders H2O Plus LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Fio Systems (FYYO)

(Case T-826/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark FYYO - Earlier EU word mark FIO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: D. Terheggen and H. Lindner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fio Systems AG (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: S. Hänsel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 (Case R 2337/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Fio Systems and TeamBank Nürnberg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders TeamBank AG Nürnberg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders TeamBank AG Nürnberg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Addiko Bank v EUIPO (STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING)

(Case T-9/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU work mark STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 44/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Addiko Bank AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Seling, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2017 (Case R 1090/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Addiko Bank AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Addiko Bank AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIVIA)

(Case T-59/18) (1)

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

(2019/C 44/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 (Case R 280/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Merck and Endoceutics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Endoceutics, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — AB Mauri Italy v EUIPO — Lesaffre (FERMIN)

(Case T-78/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the EU word mark FERMIN - Earlier international and Benelux word marks FERMIPAN - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2019/C 44/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AB Mauri Italy SpA (Casteggio, Italy) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister, and G. Hussey, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lesaffre et Cie (Paris, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Joined Cases R 2027/2016-4 and R 2254/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between AB Mauri Italy and Lesaffre et Cie.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Joined Cases R 2027/2016-4 and R 2254/2016–4) in so far as it rejected, for lack of similarity with ‘yeast’ in Class 30, the opposition to registration of the word mark FERMIN in respect of some of the goods in the same class, namely ‘mixes for bakery products; bakery mixtures (ready-to-use bread mixes); yeast- based preparations for pastries and pizza dough’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Joined Cases R 2027/2016-4 and R 2254/2016–4) in so far as it rejected, for lack of similarity with ‘yeast’ in Class 30, the opposition to registration of the word mark FERMIN in respect of some of the goods in the same class, namely ‘mixes for bakery products; bakery mixtures (ready-to-use bread mixes); yeast- based preparations for pastries and pizza dough’;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by AB Mauri Italy SpA. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by AB Mauri Italy SpA.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/47

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Cheverny Investments v Commission

(Case T-585/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Cheverny Investments Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: H. Prinz zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg, R. Staab and S. Rasch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R.Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Cheverny Investments Ltd.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Cheverny Investments Ltd.;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/48

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 – Oppenheim v Commission

(Case T-586/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sal. Oppenheim jr. & Cie AG & Co. KGaA (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: initially, W. Deselaers, J. Brückner and M. Haisch, then, T. Bernard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche, M. Adam and M. Noll-Ehlers, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Noll Ehlers and finally, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Sal. Oppenheim jr. & Cie AG & Co. KGaA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Sal. Oppenheim jr. & Cie AG & Co. KGaA;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/49

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Wagon Automotive Nagold v Commission

(Case T-610/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wagon Automotive Nagold GmbH (Nagold, Germany) (represented by: initially, T. Hackemann and H. Horstkotte, then, T. Hackemann and F. von Bredow, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Wagon Automotive Nagold GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Wagon Automotive Nagold GmbH;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/50

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Treofan Holdings and Treofan Germany v Commission

(Case T-612/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Treofan Holdings GmbH (Raunheim, Germany), Treofan Germany GmbH & Co. KG (Neunkirchen, Germany) (represented by: J de Weerth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Treofan Holdings GmbH and Treofan Germany GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Treofan Holdings GmbH and Treofan Germany GmbH & Co. KG;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/50

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — VMS Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-613/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: VMS Deutschland Holdings GmbH (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: initially, D. Pohl, G. Burwitz, M. Maier and P. Werner, then, D. Pohl and G. Burwitz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by VMS Deutschland Holdings GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by VMS Deutschland Holdings GmbH;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/51

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — CB v Commission

(Case T-619/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: CB (represented by: initially, T. Hackemann and H. Horstkotte, then, T. Hackemann and F. von Bredow, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by CB; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by CB;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/52

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — SiNN v Commission

(Case T-621/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SiNN GmbH, formerly SinnLeffers GmbH (Hagen, Germany) (represented by: initially, C. Rupp and H. Wunderlich, then, H. Wunderlich and T. Engelmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by SiNN GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by SiNN GmbH;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/53

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Sky Deutschland and Sky Deutschland Fernsehen v Commission

(Case T-626/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Sky Deutschland GmbH, formerly Sky Deutschland AG, (Unterföhring, Germany), and Sky Deutschland Fernsehen GmbH & Co. KG (Unterföhring) (represented by: initially, A. Cordewener, F. Kutt and C. Jehke, then, F. Kutt and C. Jehke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche, M. Adam and M. Noll-Ehlers, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Noll-Ehlers and finally, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Sky Deutschland GmbH and Sky Deutschland Fernsehen GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Sky Deutschland GmbH and Sky Deutschland Fernsehen GmbH & Co. KG;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/53

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ATMvision v Commission

(Case T-627/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/68)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ATMvision AG (Salem, Germany) (represented by: initially, A. Cordewener, F. Kutt and C. Jehke, then, F. Kutt and C. Jehke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche, M. Adam and M. Noll0Ehlers, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Noll-Ehlers and finally, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by ATMvision AG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by ATMvision AG;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/54

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Biogas Nord v Commission

(Case T-628/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Biogas Nord AG (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: C. Birkemeyer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Biogas Nord AG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Biogas Nord AG;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/55

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Biogas Nord Anlagenbau v Commission

(Case T-629/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Biogas Nord Anlagenbau GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: C. Birkenmeyer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Biogas Nord Anlagenbau GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Biogas Nord Anlagenbau GmbH;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/56

---

Order of the General Court of 16 November 2018 — OT v Commission

(Case T-552/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA - Rejection of the candidature - Opinion of the CCA - Non-challengeable act - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OT (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of ‘the [d]ecision of 26 September 2014 of [the Commission] refusing to accept the [a]pplicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’ (EMCDDA) and, secondly, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm the applicant has allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | OT shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

OT shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-75/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/56

---

Order of the General Court of 16 November 2018 — OT v Commission

(Case T-576/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA - Rejection of the candidature - Lis pendens - Rejection of a request for assistance - No interest in bringing proceedings - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

(2019/C 44/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OT (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, on the one hand, annulment (i) of ‘the decision of 26 September 2014 of [the Commission] refusing to accept the [a]pplicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’ (EMCDDA), (ii) of the decision of 9 April 2015, by which the Commission rejected her complaint against that decision and the request for assistance, and, (iii) of the decision of 22 October 2015, by which the Commission rejected her complaint against the rejection of her request for assistance, and, on the other hand, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | OT shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

OT shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-4/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/57

---

Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Credito Fondiario SpA v SRB

(Case T-661/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution - Period for bringing an action - Out of time - Plea of illegality - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Credito Fondiario SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, S. Frazzani, A. Neri and F. Iacovone, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: B. Meyring, A. Villani and M. Caccialanza, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent)

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

Re:

Application based, first, on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern the applicant, and, second, on Article 277 TFEU.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Credito Fondiario SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Credito Fondiario SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB).

| 3. | The European Commission and the Italian Republic shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission and the Italian Republic shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/58

---

Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB

(Case T-14/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution - Period for bringing an action - Out of time - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, S. Raes, A. Kopp and T. Van Dyck, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and, second, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Landesbank Baden-Württemberg is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Landesbank Baden-Württemberg is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB).

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

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/58

---

Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg v SRB

(Case T-42/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution - Period for bringing an action - Out of time - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/75)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg eG (Siegburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, S. Raes, A. Kopp and T. Van Dyck, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and, second, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg eG is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg eG is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB).

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

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/59

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — UI v Council

(Case T-282/17) (1)

((Civil service - Official - Action for failure to act - No decision following the report on the probationary period - Article 34 of the Staff Regulations - Decision to dismiss - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UI (represented by: J. Diaz Cordova, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the Council unlawfully failed to adopt, within the period prescribed under the Staff Regulations, a decision regarding the establishment of the applicant as an official.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

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

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/60

---

Order of the General Court of 23 October 2018 — Fakro v Commission

(Case T-293/17) (1)

((Appeal - Abuse of a dominant position in the roof windows market - Action for a declaration of failure to act - Rejection decision terminating the failure to act - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/77)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Fakro sp z o.o (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: A. Radkowiak-Macuda, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I.V. Rogalski and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it illegally refrained from adopting a position on the complaint brought before it by the applicant on 12 July 2012 concerning abuse of a dominant position in the roof windows market.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Fakro sp. z. o. o. shall bear its own costs as well as the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Fakro sp. z. o. o. shall bear its own costs as well as the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Republic of Poland shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Republic of Poland shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/60

---

Order of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)

(Case T-355/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Figurative mark RoB - Declaration of invalidity - Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Rule 49(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Rule 62(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 58(3) of Regulation 2018/625) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2019/C 44/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Daico International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Kassner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: American Franchise Marketing Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2017 (Case R 1405/2016-2), relating to cancellation proceedings between American Franchise Marketing and Daico International.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Daico International BV shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Daico International BV shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/61

---

Order of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)

(Case T-356/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Word mark RoB - Declaration of invalidity - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 62(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 58(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2019/C 44/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Daico International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Kassner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: American Franchise Marketing Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 (Case R 1407/2016-2), relating to cancellation proceedings between American Franchise Marketing and Daico International.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Daico International BV shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Daico International BV shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/62

---

Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Iccrea Banca v Commission and SRB

(Case T-494/17) (1)

((Action for annulment and damages - Economic and Monetary Union - Banking Union - Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Determination of the ex ante contribution for 2016 - Incorrect designation of the defendant - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Delay - Hypothetical measures - Claim for damages - Closely connected with the claim for annulment - Plea of illegality - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/80)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Messina, F. Isgrò and A. Dentoni Litta, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, A. Steiblytė and M. K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents) and Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: G. Rumi, S. Raes, M. Merola and T. Van Dyck, lawyers)

Re:

Principally, first, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Decision of the Executive Session of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and of all further decisions of the Single Resolution Board on the basis of which the Banca d’Italia adopted national decisions No 1249264/15 of 24 November 2015, No 1262091/15 of 26 November 2015, No 1547337/16 of 29 December 2016, No 0333162/17 of 14 March 2017, and No 0334520/17 of 14 March 2017, in so far as they concern the applicant, and, secondly, application for damages based on Article 268 TFEU, or, in the alternative, application based on Article 277 TFEU.

Operative part of the judgment

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

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board and the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/62

---

Order of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Fortischem v Parliament and Council

(Case T-560/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Environment - Regulation (EU) 2017/852 - Protection of human health and the environment - Prohibition on chlor-alkali production using mercury as an electrode - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Act not of individual concern - Inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: I. McDowell, L. Darie and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and J. Kneale, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of letter (d) in Annex III, Part I to Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (OJ 2017 L 137, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden.

| 3. | Fortischem a.s. is to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, with the exception of those relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Fortischem a.s. is to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, with the exception of those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

| 4. | Fortischem, the Council, the Parliament, the Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden are each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fortischem, the Council, the Parliament, the Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden are each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/63

---

Order of the General Court of 12 November 2018 — Stichting Against Child Trafficking v Commission

(Case T-658/17) (1)

((Action for annulment and for failure to act - Legal person informing OLAF of potentially reprehensible conduct - OLAF’s decision not to open an investigation - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility - Costs - Equity - Article 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure))

(2019/C 44/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Against Child Trafficking (Nijmegen, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Agstner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and C. Tritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Request on the basis of Articles 263 and 265 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 3 August 2017 not to open an administrative investigation in Case OC/2017/0451 and, second, an order requiring OLAF to open an administrative investigation and, depending on the findings of that investigation, to refer the case to the national law enforcement authorities for the purpose of criminal proceedings, and/or to the institutions of the European Union for the purpose of an administrative procedure.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Stichting Against Child Trafficking shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Stichting Against Child Trafficking shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/64

---

Order of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Spinoit v Commission and Others

(Case T-711/17) (1)

((Action for annulment and damages - Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the Delegation of the European Union to Algeria in the context of a public service contract - Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert - Termination of the agreement between the contracting company and the applicant further to that decision - No capacity as a defendant - Act not open to challenge - No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link - Action manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly lacking any foundation in law in part))

(2019/C 44/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bernard Spinoit (Charleroi, Belgium) (represented by: H. Hansen, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu, Agent), European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, Agents), Delegation of the European Union to Algeria

Re:

Action, first, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the letter of 3 August 2017 requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert in the context of a public services contract and, second, under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the harm that the applicant claims to have suffered further to that decision.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Bernard Spinoit shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Bernard Spinoit shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/65

---

Order of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Chioreanu v ERCEA

(Case T-717/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - ERCEA - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020) - Decision rejecting an application for revision of an evaluation of the research proposal - Administrative action before the Commission - Dismissal of the administrative action - Mistaken designation of the defendant - Application for directions to be issued - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/84)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Nicolae Chioreanu (Oradea, Romania) (represented by: D.-C. Rusu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (represented by: F. Sgritta and M.E. Chacón Mohedano, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) the decision of ERCEA of 23 March 2017 rejecting the application for revision of an evaluation of research proposal No 741797–NIP, ERC-2016–ADG ‘New and Innovative Powertrain — NIP’ and (ii) Commission Decision C(2017) 5190 final of 27 July 2017 dismissing the administrative action brought by the applicant under Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1), and, second, application requesting the General Court to require ERCEA to revise the evaluation of the research proposal referred to above.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Nicolae Chioreanu to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Nicolae Chioreanu to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/65

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — GMPO v Commission

(Case T-733/17 R)

((Interim relief - Medicinal products for human use - Active substance trientine tetrahydrochloride - Commission decision not to classify the medicinal product Cuprior-trientine as an orphan medicinal product - Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))

(2019/C 44/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GMP-Orphan (GMPO) (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Demetriou QC, E. Mackenzie, Barrister, L. Tsang and J. Mulryne, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Petersen and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of Article 5 of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 6102 final of 5 September 2017 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) for ‘Cuprior-trientine’, a medicinal product for human use.

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.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/66

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — CMS Hasche Sigle v EUIPO (WORLD LAW GROUP)

(Case T-756/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark WORLD LAW GROUP - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2019/C 44/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CMS Hasche Sigle Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P.-C. Thielen, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2017 (Case R 329/2017-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign WORLD LAW GROUP as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | CMS Hasche Sigle Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

CMS Hasche Sigle Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/67

---

Order of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Bruel v Commission and Others

(Case T-793/17) (1)

((Action for annulment and damages - Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the EU Delegation to Algeria in the context of a public procurement procedure for the provision of services - Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert - Termination of the agreement between the successful tendering company and the applicant following that decision - No capacity as defendant - Act not open to challenge - No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2019/C 44/87)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Damien Bruel (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Hansen, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu, acting as Agent), European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents), European Union Delegation to Algeria

Re:

First, application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letter of 25 September 2017 requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert in the context of an agreement for the provision of services concluded between the successful tendering company and the applicant and, secondly, application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Damien Bruel shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Damien Bruel shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/67

---

Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT

(Case T-809/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Delay - Inadmissible))

(2019/C 44/88)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Intercontact Budapest Fordító és Pénzügyi Tanácsadó Kft. (Intercontact Budapest Kft.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: É. Subasicz, lawyer)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: M. Garnier and G. Bukodi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the CdT of 10 July 2017 ranking the applicant, respectively, in second and third place in the classification of tenderers selected for the conclusion of multiple framework contracts as a result of public procurement procedures FL/GEN 16-01 and FL/GEN 16-02.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

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

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/68

---

Order of the General Court of 3 December 2018 — Classic Media v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (CLASSIC DRIVER)

(Case T-811/17) (1)

((EU Trade Mark - Opposition Proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CLASSIC DRIVER - Earlier EU word mark DRIVER - Relative Ground for Refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2019/C 44/89)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Classic Media AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Masberg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. M. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2017 (Case R 59/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pirelli Tyre and Classic Media.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Classic Media AG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Classic Media AG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/69

---

Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Novenco Building & Industry v EUIPO — Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) (NOVENCO)

(Case T-45/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark NOVENCO - Earlier EU word mark Novenco - Cancellation of the international registration - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/90)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novenco Building & Industry A/S (Næstved, Denmark) (represented by: A. Rasmussen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) Co. Ltd (Beijing, China) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Re:

First, an action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2017 (Case R 2354/2016-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Novenco Building & Industry and Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) and, second, a cross-claim made against that same decision.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the main action or on the cross-claim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the main action or on the cross-claim.

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

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/69

---

Order of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — Husky CZ v EUIPO — Husky of Tostock (HUSKY)

(Case T-82/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark HUSKY - Earlier EU word and figurative marks HUSKY - Relative ground for refusal - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2019/C 44/91)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Husky CZ s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, 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: Husky of Tostock Ltd (Woodbridge, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2018 (Case R 812/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Husky of Tostock and Husky CZ.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Husky CZ s.r.o. shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Husky CZ s.r.o. shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/70

---

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2018 — Front Polisario v Council

(Case T-275/18) (1)

((Action for annulment - Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part - Act concluding the agreement - Lack of applicability of the agreement to the territory of Western Sahara - Lack of standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/92)

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: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Decision (EU) 2018/146 of 22 January 2018 on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (OJ 2018 L 26, p. 4).

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby orders:

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic or the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic or the European Commission.

| 3. | The Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia-el-Hamra 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 Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia-el-Hamra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario) shall pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

| 4. | The Front Polisario, the Council, the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic shall each bear their own costs relating to their applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Front Polisario, the Council, the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic shall each bear their own costs relating to their applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/71

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 28 November 2018 — Klyuyev v Council

(Case T-305/18 R)

((Application for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case - No urgency))

(2019/C 44/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Andriy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, R. Gherson and T. Garner, Solicitors)

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

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5), in so far as they apply to the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs shall be reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs shall be reserved.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/71

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission

(Case T-337/18 R II)

((Interim relief - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Biocidal products - Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) - Approval refused - Application for interim measures - New application - No new facts - Inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/94)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Pareva (St. Martin de Crau, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and S. Engelbert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/619 of 20 April 2018 not approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 (OJ 2018 L 102, p. 21), and, secondly, the adoption of any other appropriate interim measure.

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.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/72

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission

(Case T-347/18 R II)

((Interim relief - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Biocidal products - Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) - Approval refused - Application for interim measures - New application - No new facts - Inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/95)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Pareva (St. Martin de Crau, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and S. Engelbert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/613 of 20 April 2018 approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 (OJ 2018 L 102, p. 1), and, secondly, the adoption of any other appropriate interim measure.

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.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/73

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission

(Case T-419/18 R)

((Interim proceedings - Competition - Euro Interbank Offered Rates (Euribor) - Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) - Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information contained in a decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Principle of the presumption of innocence - Application for interim measures - No prima facie case))

(2019/C 44/96)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, M. Farley and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, a suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2018) 2743 final of 27 April 2018 concerning objections submitted by Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank to the disclosure of information by way of publication, in accordance with Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD)) and, secondly, an order that the Commission refrain from publishing a version of its Decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7 December 2016 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement [on the European Economic Area (EEA)] (Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD)) containing elements which are allegedly confidential.

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.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/73

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission

(Case T-420/18 R)

((Application for interim measures - Competition - Euro Interbank Offered Rates (Euribor) - Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) - Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of a decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Principle of the presumption of innocence - Application for interim measures - No prima facie case))

(2019/C 44/97)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: JPMorgan Chase & Co (New York, New York, United States), JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (Columbus, Ohio, United States), J. P. Morgan Services LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Lester QC, D. Piccinin, D. Heaton, Barristers, B. Tormey, N. French, N. Frey and D. Das, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley, B. Mongin and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, a stay on the operation of Commission Decision C(2018) 2745 final of 27 April 2018, on objections to the disclosure of information by their publication raised by JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association and J.P. Morgan Services, in accordance with Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD)), and, second, an order requiring the Commission to refrain from publishing Commission Decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7 December 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 11 July 2018, JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission (T-420/18 R), is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 11 July 2018, JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission (T-420/18 R), is cancelled.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/74

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Antonakopoulos v Parliament

(Case T-590/18 R)

((Application for interim measures - Civil service - Officials - Suspension of an official from duties without withholding remuneration - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Damage to reputation - No urgency))

(2019/C 44/98)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Leonidas Antonakopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and V. Montebello-Demogeot, Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 25 September 2018 suspending the applicant from duties for an indefinite duration without withholding remuneration.

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.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/75

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ZD v Parliament

(Case T-591/18 R)

((Application for interim measures - Civil service - Officials - Suspension of an official from duties without withholding remuneration - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Damage to reputation - No urgency))

(2019/C 44/99)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and V. Montebello-Demogeot, Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 25 September 2018 suspending the applicant from duties for a fixed period without withholding remuneration.

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.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/75

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ZE v Parliament

(Case T-603/18 R)

((Interim measures - Civil service - Officials - Suspension of an official without the withholding of remuneration - Application for interim measures - Damage to reputation - No urgency))

(2019/C 44/100)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZE (represented by: P. Yatagantzidis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and V. Montebello-Demogeot, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 287 and 279 TFEU seeking (i) the suspension of the execution of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European parliament of 25 September 2018 adopting a fixed-term suspension measure without the withholding of remuneration against the applicant; and (ii) an order that the Parliament prevent and not repeat further ‘possible leaks in the media’ involving the applicant’s name, and requesting the applicant to withdraw all personal files from the information that supervisors have, where relevant, already collected in his office.

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.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/76

---

Action brought on 26 November 2018 — Apera Capital Master v EUIPO — Altera Capital (APERA CAPITAL)

(Case T-699/18)

(2019/C 44/101)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apera Capital Master Ltd. (St Peter Port, Guernsey) (represented by: C. Schröder and A. von Alten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Altera Capital (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark APERA CAPITAL — Application for registration No 15 640 436

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2018 in Case R 1091/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 104(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 104(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the applicant’s right to good administration and a fair trial. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the applicant’s right to good administration and a fair trial.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/76

---

Action brought on 28 November 2018 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FLIS Happy Moreno choco)

(Case T-708/18)

(2019/C 44/102)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark FLIS Happy Moreno choco — Application for registration No 15 030 786

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2018 in Case R 2113/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration;
  or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration;

or

| — | alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EUTMA 015030786 ‘Flis Happy Moreno choco’ for all the goods and services in classes 30 and 35, and the trademark shall be registered; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EUTMA 015030786 ‘Flis Happy Moreno choco’ for all the goods and services in classes 30 and 35, and the trademark shall be registered;

| — | award the costs in the applicant’s favour. |
| --- | --- |

—

award the costs in the applicant’s favour.

Pleas in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/77

---

Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Umweltinstitut München v Commission

(Case T-712/18)

(2019/C 44/103)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Umweltinstitut München — Verein zur Erforschung und Verminderung der Umweltbelastung eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. John, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s negative decision of 2 October 2018 (C(2018) 6539 final). |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s negative decision of 2 October 2018 (C(2018) 6539 final).

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission’s negative decision of 2 October 2018 definitively refusing the applicant access to the documents pertaining to the first meeting of the CETA Joint Committee, which took place on 26 and 27 March 2018.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:

Infringement of Article 15(3) TFEU in conjunction with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) since the defendant was not entitled, pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001, to refuse (partial) access to the requested documents.

---

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

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/78

---

Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals)

(Case T-713/18)

(2019/C 44/104)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark ESIM Chemicals — Application for registration No 14 465 331

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2018 in Case R 1267/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | resume the appeal proceedings and follow the arguments brought forward in the appeal R 1267/2018-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

resume the appeal proceedings and follow the arguments brought forward in the appeal R 1267/2018-5;

| — | in eventu, permit the application to reopen the proceedings of 29 October 2018, for a substantive decision by the Fifth Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

in eventu, permit the application to reopen the proceedings of 29 October 2018, for a substantive decision by the Fifth Board of Appeal;

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

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the procedure.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/79

---

Action brought on 5 December 2018 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there)

(Case T-716/18)

(2019/C 44/105)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: The Logistical Approach BV (Uden, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Idea Groupe (Montoir de Bretagne, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark ‘Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there’ in black, white and blue — Application for registration No 14 567 201

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September in Case R 2062/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

| — | order the company Idea Groupe to pay the costs occasioned by its intervention, should it decide to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the company Idea Groupe to pay the costs occasioned by its intervention, should it decide to intervene.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/79

---

Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Telemark plus v EUIPO (Telemarkfest)

(Case T-719/18)

(2019/C 44/106)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Telemark plus eV (Altusried, Germany) (represented by: S. Schenk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Telemarkfest — Application No 16 615 114

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2018 in Case R 346/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | reformulate the contested decision as follows by deleting point No 3 of the operative part: ‘[The Board of Appeal hereby:]






  1. | Annuls the contested decision in part, namely in so far as the application in respect of the services “Entertainment services; Arranging of transportation for travel tours; Cultural activities; Sporting activities; Services for providing food and drink and temporary accommodation” has been rejected; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

reformulate the contested decision as follows by deleting point No 3 of the operative part: ‘[The Board of Appeal hereby:]

1.

Annuls the contested decision in part, namely in so far as the application in respect of the services “Entertainment services; Arranging of transportation for travel tours; Cultural activities; Sporting activities; Services for providing food and drink and temporary accommodation” has been rejected;

| 2. | Allows the EU trade mark application also to proceed in respect of those services’; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Allows the EU trade mark application also to proceed in respect of those services’;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/80

---

Action brought on 10 December 2018 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Lloyd Shoes (LLOYD)

(Case T-729/18)

(2019/C 44/107)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lloyd Shoes GmbH (Sulingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark LLOYD — Application for registration No 10 367 721

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2018 in Joined Cases R 2385/2017-1 and R 2431/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, inasmuch as, by dismissing in part the appeal brought by the opponent, it upholds in part the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in the opposition proceedings B 1 959 470, granting EU trade mark No 10 367 721 LLOYD (figurative) for ‘wholesaling and retailing, including via the internet and through teleshopping, in the fields of clothing, footwear, headgear’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, inasmuch as, by dismissing in part the appeal brought by the opponent, it upholds in part the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in the opposition proceedings B 1 959 470, granting EU trade mark No 10 367 721 LLOYD (figurative) for ‘wholesaling and retailing, including via the internet and through teleshopping, in the fields of clothing, footwear, headgear’;

| — | order any party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order any party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/81

---

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Infratel Italia and Others v Commission

(Case T-636/15) (1)

(2019/C 44/108)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/81

---

Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Danpower Baltic v Commission

(Case T-295/17) (1)

(2019/C 44/109)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/81

---

Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T)

(Case T-379/17) (1)

(2019/C 44/110)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/82

---

Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T)

(Case T-401/17) (1)

(2019/C 44/111)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/82

---

Order of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-730/17) (1)

(2019/C 44/112)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/82

---

Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO — AXA Banque (boon.)

(Case T-2/18) (1)

(2019/C 44/113)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/82

---

Order of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL)

(Case T-222/18) (1)

(2019/C 44/114)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/83

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — European Anglers Alliance v Council

(Case T-252/18) (1)

(2019/C 44/115)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

---

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/83

---

Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Labiri v EESC

(Case T-374/18) (1)

(2019/C 44/116)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---