# Official Journal C 230/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 230 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 628 July 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 230

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 628 July 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | CDJ |
| 2019/C 230/01 | 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

CDJ

2019/C 230/01

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 |
| | CDJ |
| 2019/C 230/02 | Case C-24/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft Öffentlicher Dienst v Republik Österreich (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Exclusion of professional experience obtained before the age of 18 — New system of remuneration and advancement — Maintenance of the difference in treatment — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(1) — National legislation providing for account to be taken of a proportion of previous periods of service) | 2 |
| 2019/C 230/03 | Case C-396/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — Martin Leitner v Landespolizeidirektion Tirol (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Exclusion of professional experience acquired before the age of 18 — New system of remuneration and advancement — Maintaining a difference in treatment — Right to an effective remedy — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Justifications) | 3 |
| 2019/C 230/04 | Case C-431/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Monachos Eirinaios, kata kosmon Antonios Giakoumakis tou Emmanouil v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 98/5/EC — Access to the profession of lawyer — Monk who has obtained the professional qualification of lawyer in a Member State other than the host Member State — Article 3(2) — Condition requiring registration with the competent authority of the host Member State — Certificate attesting to registration with the competent authority of the home Member State — Refusal to register — Rules of professional conduct — Incompatibility of the status of monk with practice of the profession of lawyer) | 4 |
| 2019/C 230/05 | Case C-450/17 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 — Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank v European Central Bank, European Commission (Appeal — Economic and monetary policy — Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Article 6(4) — Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 — Article 70(1) — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Tasks conferred on the European Central Bank (ECB) — Single supervisory mechanism — Performance of those tasks by the national competent authorities — Less significant credit institution — Particular circumstances justifying a credit institution being considered less significant) | 5 |
| 2019/C 230/06 | Case C-494/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Trento — Italy) — Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR v Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Fixed-term work — Contracts concluded with a public sector employer — Measures to penalise misuse of fixed-term employment contracts — Conversion of the employment relationship into a relationship of indefinite duration — Limitation on the retroactive effect of the conversion — No financial remedies) | 5 |
| 2019/C 230/07 | Case C-566/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Związek Gmin Zagłębia Miedziowego w Polkowicach v Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168(a) — Deduction of input tax — Principle of VAT neutrality — Taxable person engaged in both economic and non-economic activities — Goods and services purchased for the purposes of performing both transactions subject to VAT and non-taxable transactions — Absence of apportionment criteria in national legislation — Principle of lawfulness of the tax) | 6 |
| 2019/C 230/08 | Case C-568/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v L.W. Geelen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 9(2)(c) and (e) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 52(a) — Article 56(1)(k) — Supply of services — Place of taxable transactions — Connecting factor for tax purposes — Interactive sessions of an erotic nature filmed and broadcast live on the internet — Entertainment activity — Definition — Place where the services are physically carried out) | 7 |
| 2019/C 230/09 | Case C-580/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Mittetulundusühing Järvelaev v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Applicability ratione temporis — Article 72 — Durability of investment operations — Substantial modification to a co-financed investment operation — Asset acquired by means of an investment operation co-financed by the EAFRD and leased by the beneficiary of the funding to another — Financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 1306/2013 — Articles 54 and 56 — Obligation of the Member States to recover sums unduly paid as a result of irregularity or negligence — Concept of irregularity — Initiation of recovery proceedings) | 8 |
| 2019/C 230/10 | Case C-631/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — SF v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 11(3)(e) — National of a Member State employed as a seaman on board a vessel flying the flag of a third State — Employer established in a Member State other than the worker’s State of residence — Determination of the applicable legislation) | 9 |
| 2019/C 230/11 | Case C-712/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Lombardia — Italy) — EN.SA. Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Fictitious transactions — Impossibility of deducting the tax — Obligation on the issuer of an invoice to pay the VAT indicated thereon — Fine in an amount equal to the amount of the improperly deducted VAT — Whether compatible with the principles of VAT neutrality and proportionality) | 10 |
| 2019/C 230/12 | Case C-25/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad — Blagoevgrad — Bulgaria) — Brian Andrew Kerr v Pavlo Postnov, Natalia Postnova (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(1)(a) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to contract — Concept of matters relating to a contract — Decision of the general meeting of the owners of property in a building — Obligation of the owners to pay annual financial contributions to the budget of the association of property owners as determined by that decision — Legal action seeking enforcement of that decision — Law applicable to contractual obligations — Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 — Article 4(1)(b) and (c) — Concepts of contract for the provision of services and a contract relating to a right in rem in immovable property — Decision of the general meeting of the owners of property in a building relating to maintenance costs for communal areas) | 11 |
| 2019/C 230/13 | Case C-53/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Markets in financial instruments — Directive 2004/39/EC — Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 — Scope — Financial adviser authorised to provide offsite services — Staff member who has become a defendant in criminal proceedings — National legislation providing for the possibility of temporarily prohibiting the exercise of the activity — Fundamental freedoms — Purely internal situation — Not applicable) | 12 |
| 2019/C 230/14 | Case C-127/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — A-PACK CZ s. r. o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 90 and 273 — Total or partial non-payment, by the debtor, of a sum due to the taxable person in respect of a transaction subject to VAT — Taxable amount — Reduction — Principles of fiscal neutrality and  proportionality) | 12 |
| 2019/C 230/15 | Case C-161/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León -Spain) — Violeta Villar Láiz v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Directive 79/7/EEC — Article 4 — Prohibition of any discrimination on the ground of sex — Indirect discrimination — Part-time work — Calculation of retirement pension) | 13 |
| 2019/C 230/16 | Case C-194/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Jadran Dodič v Banka Koper, Alta Invest (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Transfers of undertakings — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 1(1) — Scope — Criteria for assessment of the transfer — Transfer of clients — Transfer of all the financial services of a bank, excluding staff, to a stock brokering company) | 14 |
| 2019/C 230/17 | Case C-230/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol — Austria) — PI v Landespolizeidirektion Tirol (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Article 15(2) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Restriction — Decision to immediately close a commercial enterprise — No statement of reasons — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Prevention of criminal offences against persons engaged in prostitution — Protection of public health — Proportionality of the restriction on the freedom of establishment — Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Effectiveness of judicial review — Rights of defence — General principle of the right to good administration) | 15 |
| 2019/C 230/18 | Case C-243/18 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 — European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion for Energy v Yosu Galocha (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Competition — Judgment annulling a decision — Extent of the annulment — Weighing up of interests involved — Annulment of reserve lists — Annulment of the decisions to appoint successful candidates from those lists) | 15 |
| 2019/C 230/19 | Case C-253/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Stadt Euskirchen v Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Public passenger transport services by rail and by road — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Article 5(1) and (2) — Direct award — Contracts for public passenger transport services by bus and by tram — Conditions — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 12 — Directive 2014/25/EU — Article 28) | 16 |
| 2019/C 230/20 | Case C-305/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Verdi Ambiente e Società (VAS) — Aps Onlus, Movimento Legge Rifiuti Zero per l’Economia Circolare Aps v Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2008/98/EC — Disposal or recovery of waste — Establishment of an integrated waste management system guaranteeing national self-sufficiency — Construction of incineration facilities or increase in capacity of existing facilities — Classification of incineration facilities as strategic infrastructure and installations of major national importance — Compliance with the waste hierarchy principle — Directive 2001/42/EC — Need to carry out an environmental assessment) | 17 |
| 2019/C 230/21 | Case C-486/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — RE v Praxair MRC SAS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.6 — Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave — Dismissal — Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance — Method of calculation — Article 157 TFEU — Equal pay for male and female workers — Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers — Indirect discrimination — Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination — None) | 18 |
| 2019/C 230/22 | Case C-780/18 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2018 by Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2018 in Case T-374/17 Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira | 19 |
| 2019/C 230/23 | Case C-264/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC, Google Inc. | 19 |
| 2019/C 230/24 | Case C-266/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 March 2019 — EIS GmbH v TO | 20 |
| 2019/C 230/25 | Case C-279/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 3 April 2019 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v WR | 21 |
| 2019/C 230/26 | Case C-297/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 April 2019 — Naturschutzbund Deutschland — Landesverband Schleswig-Holstein e.V. v Kreis Nordfriesland | 21 |
| 2019/C 230/27 | Case C-343/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria) lodged on 30 April 2019 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG | 22 |
| 2019/C 230/28 | Case C-354/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Novartis AG v Patent-och registreringsverket | 23 |
| 2019/C 230/29 | Case C-390/19 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2019 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-135/15 Italy v Commission | 24 |
| | GCEU |
| 2019/C 230/30 | Case T-604/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Ertico — ITS Europe v Commission (Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Decision of the Commission’s Validation Panel on qualification as a micro, small and medium-sized business — Request for review under sections 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 of the Annex to Decision 2012/838/EU, Euratom — No administrative appeal within the meaning of Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Res judicata — Criteria for the definition of micro, small and medium-sized businesses in EU policies — Concept of an enterprise — Concept of an economic activity — Criterion of independence — Obligation to state reasons) | 25 |
| 2019/C 230/31 | Case T-197/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Andrea Incontri v EUIPO — Higicol (ANDREA INCONTRI) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the European Union word mark ANDREA INCONTRI — Earlier European Union word mark ANDREIA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character of a first name and a surname — Power to alter decisions) | 26 |
| 2019/C 230/32 | Case T-690/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Enrico Colombo and Corinti Giacomo v Commission (Public works contracts — Tendering procedure — JRC in Ispra — Works for the construction and maintenance of water pipes and district heating/cooling substations — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Action for annulment — Action for damages — Obligation to state reasons) | 26 |
| 2019/C 230/33 | Case T-791/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Real Madrid Club de Fútbol v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to a professional football club — Settlement aimed atcompensating for a failure to carry out a land transfer initially agreed between a city council and a football club — Football club overcompensated — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Advantage) | 27 |
| 2019/C 230/34 | Joined Cases T-836/16 and T-624/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Poland v Commission (State aid — Polish tax on the retail sector — Progressive tax levied on turnover — Decision to open the formal investigation procedure — Final decision classifying the measure as State aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Condition relating to selectivity) | 28 |
| 2019/C 230/35 | Case T-37/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Bank Tejarat v Council (Non-contractual liability — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds — Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States — Compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant following its inclusion and re-inclusion in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures at issue — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals) | 29 |
| 2019/C 230/36 | Case T-107/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Steinhoff and Others v ECB (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — ECB — National central banks — Restructuring of the Greek public debt — Involvement of the private sector — Collective action clauses — Mandatory exchange of Greek bonds — Private creditors — Opinion of the ECB — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Principle of pacta sunt servanda — Article 17(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Article 63(1) TFEU — Article 124 TFUE) | 30 |
| 2019/C 230/37 | Case T-728/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Marinvest and Porting v Commission (State aid — Pleasure port infrastructure — Concession for the management of a port and the provision of infrastructures and services without economic consideration — Decision finding that there is no State aid — Effect on trade between Member States) | 30 |
| 2019/C 230/38 | Case T-733/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — GMPO v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 — Definition of significant benefit — Availability of orphan medicinal products — Article 5(12)(b) of Regulation No 141/2000 — Commission decision to remove a medicinal product from the Register of Orphan Medicinal Products — Error of assessment — Error of law — Legitimate expectations) | 31 |
| 2019/C 230/39 | Case T-751/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Commune de Fessenheim and Others v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Letter sent by the Commission to the French authorities regarding the protocol for the compensation of the EDF Group in respect of the repeal of the permit to operate the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption of confidentiality — Overriding public interest) | 32 |
| 2019/C 230/40 | Case T-795/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Moreira v EUIPO — Da Silva Santos Júnior (NEYMAR) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark NEYMAR — Declaration of invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 33 |
| 2019/C 230/41 | Case T-813/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Nerantzaki v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition EPSO/AD/331/16 — Conditions for admission — Decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition — Error of law) | 33 |
| 2019/C 230/42 | Joined Cases T-3/18 and T-4/18: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word and figurative marks ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR — Absolute ground for invalidity — Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Bad faith) | 34 |
| 2019/C 230/43 | Case T-12/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Triumph — Earlier EU word mark TRIUMPH — Partial rejection of the application for registration — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identical signs — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use — Similarity between products — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 35 |
| 2019/C 230/44 | Case T-37/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński v EUIPO — Heinrich Bauer Verlag (Brave Paper) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Brave Paper — Earlier national word mark BRAVO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Conceptual similarity) | 36 |
| 2019/C 230/45 | Joined Cases T-89/18 and T-90/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol and CAFE DEL SOL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for the EU word and figurative marks Café del Sol and CAFE DEL SOL — Earlier national figurative mark Café del Sol — Proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark — Translation — Rights of the defence — Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 36 |
| 2019/C 230/46 | Case T-99/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Stamatopoulos v ENISA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Appointment to a post of head of unit — Rejection of application — Duty to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Transparency — Liability) | 37 |
| 2019/C 230/47 | Case T-104/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2019 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Development of a system to monitor process and quality in the sector of industrial food production — Food-Watch Project — Overlap of the project with another project funded under the same programme — Information requirements on beneficiaries — Decision to demand repayment of the financial contribution paid under the grant agreement) | 38 |
| 2019/C 230/48 | Case T-185/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Lucchini v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Partial annulment of the Commission decision — Rejection of a request for reimbursement of a fine paid pursuant to a decision annulled in part — Rejection of a request to be allowed to participate in the administrative procedure that was reopened following the partial annulment of the decision — Rights of the defence — Non-existent act — Non-contractual liability — Limitation) | 39 |
| 2019/C 230/49 | Case T-228/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Transtec v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Framework contract for the provision of services — Services to third countries benefiting from external aid — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to other tenderers — Allegations of grave professional misconduct against a tenderer — No final judgment or final administrative decision establishing grave professional misconduct — Conditions for referral to the panel referred to in Article 108 of the Financial Regulation — Abnormally low tenders — Duty to state reasons — Taking into account of a letter sent by the awarding authority after the action had been brought — Right to an effective remedy — Standstill period for bringing an action against the award decision — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination — Articles 105a, 106, 108, 113 and 118 of the Financial Regulation — Non-contractual liability) | 40 |
| 2019/C 230/50 | Case T-269/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf Italia (ZARA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ZARA — Earlier national word and figurative marks LE DELIZIE ZARA and ZARA — Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons) | 40 |
| 2019/C 230/51 | Case T-324/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a golden bottle) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a golden bottle — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 41 |
| 2019/C 230/52 | Case T-325/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a pink bottle) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a pink bottle — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 42 |
| 2019/C 230/53 | Case T-354/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — KID-Systeme v EUIPO — Sky (SKYFi) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SKYFi — Earlier national and EU word marks SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Identity of goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Suspension of the administrative procedure — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Misuse of powers — Right to a fair trial — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Article 96 of Regulation 2017/1001) | 43 |
| 2019/C 230/54 | Case T-465/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 44 |
| 2019/C 230/55 | Case T-466/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 44 |
| 2019/C 230/56 | Case T-469/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Battelle Memorial Institute v EUIPO (HEATCOAT) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark HEATCOAT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration) | 45 |
| 2019/C 230/57 | Case T-629/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — mobile.de v EUIPO (Representation of a car in a speech bubble) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a car in a speech bubble — Admissibility of the action before the Board of Appeal — Article 49(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Restriction of the list of goods or services covered by the mark applied for — Article 27(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to adjudicate on a request for restriction) | 46 |
| 2019/C 230/58 | Case T-237/18: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2019 — Martini-Sportswear v EUIPO — Olympique de Marseille (M) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark M — Withdrawal of the contested measure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 46 |
| 2019/C 230/59 | Case T-281/18: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — ABLV Bank v ECB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Parent company and subsidiary — Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Preparatory measures — Acts not open to judicial review — Inadmissibility) | 47 |
| 2019/C 230/60 | Case T-283/18: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Bernis and Others v ECB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Parent company and subsidiary — Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Preparatory measures — Acts not open to judicial review — Inadmissibility) | 48 |
| 2019/C 230/61 | Case T-330/18: Order of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment and damages — Environment — Greenhouse gas emissions — 2030 climate and energy package — Directive (EU) 2018/410 — Regulation (EU) 2018/842 — Regulation (EU) 2018/841 — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 49 |
| 2019/C 230/62 | Case T-396/18: Order of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — ITSA v Commission (Action for annulment — Approximation of laws — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products and related product — Establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products — Delegated Regulation and implementing acts — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility) | 50 |
| 2019/C 230/63 | Case T-422/18: Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — RATP v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure initiated by the Commission against a Member State — Documents originating from the applicant — Third party access request — Initial decision to grant partial access — Lack of purpose — Inadmissibility) | 50 |
| 2019/C 230/64 | Case T-473/18: Order of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Getsmarter Online v EUIPO (getsmarter) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark getsmarter — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 51 |
| 2019/C 230/65 | Case T-517/18: Order of the General Court of 10 May 2019 — Zott v EUIPO — TSC Food Products (Ready-to-eat rectangular cake) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design representing a ready-to-eat rectangular cake — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Designer’s degree of freedom — Informed user — Article 4(1), Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 52 |
| 2019/C 230/66 | Case T-602/18: Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Ayuntamiento de Enguera v Commission (Action for annulment — Grant agreement concluded under the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) — Reduction of the amount of the grant — Reclassification of the action — Refusal of the applicant — Inadmissibility) | 53 |
| 2019/C 230/67 | Case T-734/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Sumitomo Chemical and Tenka Best v Commission (Interim measures — Biocidal products — Active substance empenthrin — Non-approval — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 53 |
| 2019/C 230/68 | Case T-245/19: Action brought on 10 April 2019 — Uzina Metalurgica Moldoveneasca/Commission | 54 |
| 2019/C 230/69 | Case T-266/19: Action brought on 20 April 2019 — gastivo portal v EUIPO — La Fourchette (Representation of a fork on a green background) | 55 |
| 2019/C 230/70 | Case T-267/19: Action brought on 20 April 2019 — gastivo portal v EUIPO — La Fourchette (Representation of a fork on a green background) | 56 |
| 2019/C 230/71 | Case T-294/19: Action brought on 4 May 2019 — Vanhoudt and Others v EIB | 57 |
| 2019/C 230/72 | Case T-299/19: Action brought on 9 May 2019 — VG v Commission | 58 |
| 2019/C 230/73 | Case T-305/19: Action brought on 14 May 2019 — Welmax + v EUIPO — Valmex Medical Imaging (welmax) | 59 |
| 2019/C 230/74 | Case T-307/19: Action brought on 20 May 2019 — SQlab v EUIPO (Innerbarend) | 60 |
| 2019/C 230/75 | Case T-308/19: Action brought on 17 May 2019 — BU v Commission | 61 |
| 2019/C 230/76 | Case T-312/19: Action brought on 21 May 2019 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — Golden Frog (CHAMELEON) | 63 |
| 2019/C 230/77 | Case T-314/19: Action brought on 22 May 2019 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v Commission | 64 |
| 2019/C 230/78 | Case T-419/18: Order of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission | 65 |
| 2019/C 230/79 | Case T-699/18: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Apera Capital Master v EUIPO — Altera Capital (APERA CAPITAL) | 66 |
| 2019/C 230/80 | Case T-115/19: Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Bacardi v EUIPO — La Fée (ANGEL’S ENVY) | 66 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

CDJ

2019/C 230/02

Case C-24/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft Öffentlicher Dienst v Republik Österreich (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Exclusion of professional experience obtained before the age of 18 — New system of remuneration and advancement — Maintenance of the difference in treatment — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(1) — National legislation providing for account to be taken of a proportion of previous periods of service)

2

2019/C 230/03

Case C-396/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — Martin Leitner v Landespolizeidirektion Tirol (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Exclusion of professional experience acquired before the age of 18 — New system of remuneration and advancement — Maintaining a difference in treatment — Right to an effective remedy — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Justifications)

3

2019/C 230/04

Case C-431/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Monachos Eirinaios, kata kosmon Antonios Giakoumakis tou Emmanouil v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 98/5/EC — Access to the profession of lawyer — Monk who has obtained the professional qualification of lawyer in a Member State other than the host Member State — Article 3(2) — Condition requiring registration with the competent authority of the host Member State — Certificate attesting to registration with the competent authority of the home Member State — Refusal to register — Rules of professional conduct — Incompatibility of the status of monk with practice of the profession of lawyer)

4

2019/C 230/05

Case C-450/17 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 — Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank v European Central Bank, European Commission (Appeal — Economic and monetary policy — Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Article 6(4) — Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 — Article 70(1) — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Tasks conferred on the European Central Bank (ECB) — Single supervisory mechanism — Performance of those tasks by the national competent authorities — Less significant credit institution — Particular circumstances justifying a credit institution being considered less significant)

5

2019/C 230/06

Case C-494/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Trento — Italy) — Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR v Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Fixed-term work — Contracts concluded with a public sector employer — Measures to penalise misuse of fixed-term employment contracts — Conversion of the employment relationship into a relationship of indefinite duration — Limitation on the retroactive effect of the conversion — No financial remedies)

5

2019/C 230/07

Case C-566/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Związek Gmin Zagłębia Miedziowego w Polkowicach v Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168(a) — Deduction of input tax — Principle of VAT neutrality — Taxable person engaged in both economic and non-economic activities — Goods and services purchased for the purposes of performing both transactions subject to VAT and non-taxable transactions — Absence of apportionment criteria in national legislation — Principle of lawfulness of the tax)

6

2019/C 230/08

Case C-568/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v L.W. Geelen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 9(2)(c) and (e) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 52(a) — Article 56(1)(k) — Supply of services — Place of taxable transactions — Connecting factor for tax purposes — Interactive sessions of an erotic nature filmed and broadcast live on the internet — Entertainment activity — Definition — Place where the services are physically carried out)

7

2019/C 230/09

Case C-580/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Mittetulundusühing Järvelaev v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Applicability ratione temporis — Article 72 — Durability of investment operations — Substantial modification to a co-financed investment operation — Asset acquired by means of an investment operation co-financed by the EAFRD and leased by the beneficiary of the funding to another — Financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 1306/2013 — Articles 54 and 56 — Obligation of the Member States to recover sums unduly paid as a result of irregularity or negligence — Concept of irregularity — Initiation of recovery proceedings)

8

2019/C 230/10

Case C-631/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — SF v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 11(3)(e) — National of a Member State employed as a seaman on board a vessel flying the flag of a third State — Employer established in a Member State other than the worker’s State of residence — Determination of the applicable legislation)

9

2019/C 230/11

Case C-712/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Lombardia — Italy) — EN.SA. Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Fictitious transactions — Impossibility of deducting the tax — Obligation on the issuer of an invoice to pay the VAT indicated thereon — Fine in an amount equal to the amount of the improperly deducted VAT — Whether compatible with the principles of VAT neutrality and proportionality)

10

2019/C 230/12

Case C-25/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad — Blagoevgrad — Bulgaria) — Brian Andrew Kerr v Pavlo Postnov, Natalia Postnova (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(1)(a) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to contract — Concept of matters relating to a contract — Decision of the general meeting of the owners of property in a building — Obligation of the owners to pay annual financial contributions to the budget of the association of property owners as determined by that decision — Legal action seeking enforcement of that decision — Law applicable to contractual obligations — Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 — Article 4(1)(b) and (c) — Concepts of contract for the provision of services and a contract relating to a right in rem in immovable property — Decision of the general meeting of the owners of property in a building relating to maintenance costs for communal areas)

11

2019/C 230/13

Case C-53/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Markets in financial instruments — Directive 2004/39/EC — Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 — Scope — Financial adviser authorised to provide offsite services — Staff member who has become a defendant in criminal proceedings — National legislation providing for the possibility of temporarily prohibiting the exercise of the activity — Fundamental freedoms — Purely internal situation — Not applicable)

12

2019/C 230/14

Case C-127/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — A-PACK CZ s. r. o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 90 and 273 — Total or partial non-payment, by the debtor, of a sum due to the taxable person in respect of a transaction subject to VAT — Taxable amount — Reduction — Principles of fiscal neutrality and  proportionality)

12

2019/C 230/15

Case C-161/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León -Spain) — Violeta Villar Láiz v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Directive 79/7/EEC — Article 4 — Prohibition of any discrimination on the ground of sex — Indirect discrimination — Part-time work — Calculation of retirement pension)

13

2019/C 230/16

Case C-194/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Jadran Dodič v Banka Koper, Alta Invest (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Transfers of undertakings — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 1(1) — Scope — Criteria for assessment of the transfer — Transfer of clients — Transfer of all the financial services of a bank, excluding staff, to a stock brokering company)

14

2019/C 230/17

Case C-230/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol — Austria) — PI v Landespolizeidirektion Tirol (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Article 15(2) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Restriction — Decision to immediately close a commercial enterprise — No statement of reasons — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Prevention of criminal offences against persons engaged in prostitution — Protection of public health — Proportionality of the restriction on the freedom of establishment — Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Effectiveness of judicial review — Rights of defence — General principle of the right to good administration)

15

2019/C 230/18

Case C-243/18 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 — European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion for Energy v Yosu Galocha (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Competition — Judgment annulling a decision — Extent of the annulment — Weighing up of interests involved — Annulment of reserve lists — Annulment of the decisions to appoint successful candidates from those lists)

15

2019/C 230/19

Case C-253/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Stadt Euskirchen v Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Public passenger transport services by rail and by road — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Article 5(1) and (2) — Direct award — Contracts for public passenger transport services by bus and by tram — Conditions — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 12 — Directive 2014/25/EU — Article 28)

16

2019/C 230/20

Case C-305/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Verdi Ambiente e Società (VAS) — Aps Onlus, Movimento Legge Rifiuti Zero per l’Economia Circolare Aps v Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2008/98/EC — Disposal or recovery of waste — Establishment of an integrated waste management system guaranteeing national self-sufficiency — Construction of incineration facilities or increase in capacity of existing facilities — Classification of incineration facilities as strategic infrastructure and installations of major national importance — Compliance with the waste hierarchy principle — Directive 2001/42/EC — Need to carry out an environmental assessment)

17

2019/C 230/21

Case C-486/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — RE v Praxair MRC SAS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.6 — Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave — Dismissal — Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance — Method of calculation — Article 157 TFEU — Equal pay for male and female workers — Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers — Indirect discrimination — Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination — None)

18

2019/C 230/22

Case C-780/18 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2018 by Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2018 in Case T-374/17 Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira

19

2019/C 230/23

Case C-264/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC, Google Inc.

19

2019/C 230/24

Case C-266/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 March 2019 — EIS GmbH v TO

20

2019/C 230/25

Case C-279/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 3 April 2019 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v WR

21

2019/C 230/26

Case C-297/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 April 2019 — Naturschutzbund Deutschland — Landesverband Schleswig-Holstein e.V. v Kreis Nordfriesland

21

2019/C 230/27

Case C-343/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria) lodged on 30 April 2019 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG

22

2019/C 230/28

Case C-354/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Novartis AG v Patent-och registreringsverket

23

2019/C 230/29

Case C-390/19 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2019 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-135/15 Italy v Commission

24

GCEU

2019/C 230/30

Case T-604/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Ertico — ITS Europe v Commission (Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Decision of the Commission’s Validation Panel on qualification as a micro, small and medium-sized business — Request for review under sections 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 of the Annex to Decision 2012/838/EU, Euratom — No administrative appeal within the meaning of Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Res judicata — Criteria for the definition of micro, small and medium-sized businesses in EU policies — Concept of an enterprise — Concept of an economic activity — Criterion of independence — Obligation to state reasons)

25

2019/C 230/31

Case T-197/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Andrea Incontri v EUIPO — Higicol (ANDREA INCONTRI) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the European Union word mark ANDREA INCONTRI — Earlier European Union word mark ANDREIA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character of a first name and a surname — Power to alter decisions)

26

2019/C 230/32

Case T-690/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Enrico Colombo and Corinti Giacomo v Commission (Public works contracts — Tendering procedure — JRC in Ispra — Works for the construction and maintenance of water pipes and district heating/cooling substations — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Action for annulment — Action for damages — Obligation to state reasons)

26

2019/C 230/33

Case T-791/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Real Madrid Club de Fútbol v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to a professional football club — Settlement aimed atcompensating for a failure to carry out a land transfer initially agreed between a city council and a football club — Football club overcompensated — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Advantage)

27

2019/C 230/34

Joined Cases T-836/16 and T-624/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Poland v Commission (State aid — Polish tax on the retail sector — Progressive tax levied on turnover — Decision to open the formal investigation procedure — Final decision classifying the measure as State aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Condition relating to selectivity)

28

2019/C 230/35

Case T-37/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Bank Tejarat v Council (Non-contractual liability — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds — Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States — Compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant following its inclusion and re-inclusion in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures at issue — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

29

2019/C 230/36

Case T-107/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Steinhoff and Others v ECB (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — ECB — National central banks — Restructuring of the Greek public debt — Involvement of the private sector — Collective action clauses — Mandatory exchange of Greek bonds — Private creditors — Opinion of the ECB — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Principle of pacta sunt servanda — Article 17(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Article 63(1) TFEU — Article 124 TFUE)

30

2019/C 230/37

Case T-728/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Marinvest and Porting v Commission (State aid — Pleasure port infrastructure — Concession for the management of a port and the provision of infrastructures and services without economic consideration — Decision finding that there is no State aid — Effect on trade between Member States)

30

2019/C 230/38

Case T-733/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — GMPO v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 — Definition of significant benefit — Availability of orphan medicinal products — Article 5(12)(b) of Regulation No 141/2000 — Commission decision to remove a medicinal product from the Register of Orphan Medicinal Products — Error of assessment — Error of law — Legitimate expectations)

31

2019/C 230/39

Case T-751/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Commune de Fessenheim and Others v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Letter sent by the Commission to the French authorities regarding the protocol for the compensation of the EDF Group in respect of the repeal of the permit to operate the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption of confidentiality — Overriding public interest)

32

2019/C 230/40

Case T-795/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Moreira v EUIPO — Da Silva Santos Júnior (NEYMAR) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark NEYMAR — Declaration of invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

33

2019/C 230/41

Case T-813/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Nerantzaki v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition EPSO/AD/331/16 — Conditions for admission — Decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition — Error of law)

33

2019/C 230/42

Joined Cases T-3/18 and T-4/18: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word and figurative marks ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR — Absolute ground for invalidity — Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Bad faith)

34

2019/C 230/43

Case T-12/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Triumph — Earlier EU word mark TRIUMPH — Partial rejection of the application for registration — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identical signs — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use — Similarity between products — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

35

2019/C 230/44

Case T-37/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński v EUIPO — Heinrich Bauer Verlag (Brave Paper) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Brave Paper — Earlier national word mark BRAVO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Conceptual similarity)

36

2019/C 230/45

Joined Cases T-89/18 and T-90/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol and CAFE DEL SOL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for the EU word and figurative marks Café del Sol and CAFE DEL SOL — Earlier national figurative mark Café del Sol — Proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark — Translation — Rights of the defence — Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

36

2019/C 230/46

Case T-99/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Stamatopoulos v ENISA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Appointment to a post of head of unit — Rejection of application — Duty to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Transparency — Liability)

37

2019/C 230/47

Case T-104/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2019 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Development of a system to monitor process and quality in the sector of industrial food production — Food-Watch Project — Overlap of the project with another project funded under the same programme — Information requirements on beneficiaries — Decision to demand repayment of the financial contribution paid under the grant agreement)

38

2019/C 230/48

Case T-185/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Lucchini v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Partial annulment of the Commission decision — Rejection of a request for reimbursement of a fine paid pursuant to a decision annulled in part — Rejection of a request to be allowed to participate in the administrative procedure that was reopened following the partial annulment of the decision — Rights of the defence — Non-existent act — Non-contractual liability — Limitation)

39

2019/C 230/49

Case T-228/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Transtec v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Framework contract for the provision of services — Services to third countries benefiting from external aid — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to other tenderers — Allegations of grave professional misconduct against a tenderer — No final judgment or final administrative decision establishing grave professional misconduct — Conditions for referral to the panel referred to in Article 108 of the Financial Regulation — Abnormally low tenders — Duty to state reasons — Taking into account of a letter sent by the awarding authority after the action had been brought — Right to an effective remedy — Standstill period for bringing an action against the award decision — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination — Articles 105a, 106, 108, 113 and 118 of the Financial Regulation — Non-contractual liability)

40

2019/C 230/50

Case T-269/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf Italia (ZARA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ZARA — Earlier national word and figurative marks LE DELIZIE ZARA and ZARA — Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons)

40

2019/C 230/51

Case T-324/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a golden bottle) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a golden bottle — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001)

41

2019/C 230/52

Case T-325/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a pink bottle) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a pink bottle — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001)

42

2019/C 230/53

Case T-354/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — KID-Systeme v EUIPO — Sky (SKYFi) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SKYFi — Earlier national and EU word marks SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Identity of goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Suspension of the administrative procedure — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Misuse of powers — Right to a fair trial — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Article 96 of Regulation 2017/1001)

43

2019/C 230/54

Case T-465/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

44

2019/C 230/55

Case T-466/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

44

2019/C 230/56

Case T-469/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Battelle Memorial Institute v EUIPO (HEATCOAT) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark HEATCOAT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration)

45

2019/C 230/57

Case T-629/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — mobile.de v EUIPO (Representation of a car in a speech bubble) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a car in a speech bubble — Admissibility of the action before the Board of Appeal — Article 49(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Restriction of the list of goods or services covered by the mark applied for — Article 27(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to adjudicate on a request for restriction)

46

2019/C 230/58

Case T-237/18: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2019 — Martini-Sportswear v EUIPO — Olympique de Marseille (M) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark M — Withdrawal of the contested measure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

46

2019/C 230/59

Case T-281/18: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — ABLV Bank v ECB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Parent company and subsidiary — Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Preparatory measures — Acts not open to judicial review — Inadmissibility)

47

2019/C 230/60

Case T-283/18: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Bernis and Others v ECB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Parent company and subsidiary — Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Preparatory measures — Acts not open to judicial review — Inadmissibility)

48

2019/C 230/61

Case T-330/18: Order of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment and damages — Environment — Greenhouse gas emissions — 2030 climate and energy package — Directive (EU) 2018/410 — Regulation (EU) 2018/842 — Regulation (EU) 2018/841 — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

49

2019/C 230/62

Case T-396/18: Order of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — ITSA v Commission (Action for annulment — Approximation of laws — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products and related product — Establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products — Delegated Regulation and implementing acts — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

50

2019/C 230/63

Case T-422/18: Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — RATP v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure initiated by the Commission against a Member State — Documents originating from the applicant — Third party access request — Initial decision to grant partial access — Lack of purpose — Inadmissibility)

50

2019/C 230/64

Case T-473/18: Order of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Getsmarter Online v EUIPO (getsmarter) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark getsmarter — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

51

2019/C 230/65

Case T-517/18: Order of the General Court of 10 May 2019 — Zott v EUIPO — TSC Food Products (Ready-to-eat rectangular cake) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design representing a ready-to-eat rectangular cake — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Designer’s degree of freedom — Informed user — Article 4(1), Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

52

2019/C 230/66

Case T-602/18: Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Ayuntamiento de Enguera v Commission (Action for annulment — Grant agreement concluded under the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) — Reduction of the amount of the grant — Reclassification of the action — Refusal of the applicant — Inadmissibility)

53

2019/C 230/67

Case T-734/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Sumitomo Chemical and Tenka Best v Commission (Interim measures — Biocidal products — Active substance empenthrin — Non-approval — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

53

2019/C 230/68

Case T-245/19: Action brought on 10 April 2019 — Uzina Metalurgica Moldoveneasca/Commission

54

2019/C 230/69

Case T-266/19: Action brought on 20 April 2019 — gastivo portal v EUIPO — La Fourchette (Representation of a fork on a green background)

55

2019/C 230/70

Case T-267/19: Action brought on 20 April 2019 — gastivo portal v EUIPO — La Fourchette (Representation of a fork on a green background)

56

2019/C 230/71

Case T-294/19: Action brought on 4 May 2019 — Vanhoudt and Others v EIB

57

2019/C 230/72

Case T-299/19: Action brought on 9 May 2019 — VG v Commission

58

2019/C 230/73

Case T-305/19: Action brought on 14 May 2019 — Welmax + v EUIPO — Valmex Medical Imaging (welmax)

59

2019/C 230/74

Case T-307/19: Action brought on 20 May 2019 — SQlab v EUIPO (Innerbarend)

60

2019/C 230/75

Case T-308/19: Action brought on 17 May 2019 — BU v Commission

61

2019/C 230/76

Case T-312/19: Action brought on 21 May 2019 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — Golden Frog (CHAMELEON)

63

2019/C 230/77

Case T-314/19: Action brought on 22 May 2019 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v Commission

64

2019/C 230/78

Case T-419/18: Order of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission

65

2019/C 230/79

Case T-699/18: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Apera Capital Master v EUIPO — Altera Capital (APERA CAPITAL)

66

2019/C 230/80

Case T-115/19: Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Bacardi v EUIPO — La Fée (ANGEL’S ENVY)

66

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

CDJ

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/1

---

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

(2019/C 230/01)

Last publication

OJ C 220, 1.7.2019

Past publications

OJ C 213, 24.6.2019

OJ C 206, 17.6.2019

OJ C 187, 3.6.2019

OJ C 182, 27.5.2019

OJ C 172, 20.5.2019

OJ C 164, 13.5.2019

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

CDJ

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft Öffentlicher Dienst v Republik Österreich

(Case C-24/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Exclusion of professional experience obtained before the age of 18 - New system of remuneration and advancement - Maintenance of the difference in treatment - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(1) - National legislation providing for account to be taken of a proportion of previous periods of service)

(2019/C 230/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft Öffentlicher Dienst

Defendant: Republik Österreich

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in combination with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, entering into force retroactively, that, for the purposes of putting an end to discrimination on grounds of age, provides for the transition of active contractual public servants to a new system of remuneration and advancement in the context of which the initial grading of those contractual public servants is calculated according to their last remuneration paid under the previous system. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in combination with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, entering into force retroactively, that, for the purposes of putting an end to discrimination on grounds of age, provides for the transition of active contractual public servants to a new system of remuneration and advancement in the context of which the initial grading of those contractual public servants is calculated according to their last remuneration paid under the previous system.

| 2. | In the event that national provisions cannot be interpreted in conformity with Directive 2000/78, the national court is required to provide, within the limits of its jurisdiction, the legal protection that individuals derive from that directive and to ensure the full effectiveness of that directive, disapplying, if need be, any incompatible provision of national legislation. EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, where discrimination, contrary to EU law, has been established, as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, the restoration of equal treatment, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, involves granting contractual public servants treated unfavourably by the old system of remuneration and advancement the same benefits as those enjoyed by the contractual public servants favoured by that system, both as regards the recognition of periods of service completed before the age of 18 and advancement in the salary scale and, consequently, granting compensation to contractual public servants discriminated against that is equal to the difference between the amount of remuneration the contractual public servant should have received if he had not been treated in a discriminatory manner and the amount of remuneration he actually received. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that national provisions cannot be interpreted in conformity with Directive 2000/78, the national court is required to provide, within the limits of its jurisdiction, the legal protection that individuals derive from that directive and to ensure the full effectiveness of that directive, disapplying, if need be, any incompatible provision of national legislation. EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, where discrimination, contrary to EU law, has been established, as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, the restoration of equal treatment, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, involves granting contractual public servants treated unfavourably by the old system of remuneration and advancement the same benefits as those enjoyed by the contractual public servants favoured by that system, both as regards the recognition of periods of service completed before the age of 18 and advancement in the salary scale and, consequently, granting compensation to contractual public servants discriminated against that is equal to the difference between the amount of remuneration the contractual public servant should have received if he had not been treated in a discriminatory manner and the amount of remuneration he actually received.

| 3. | Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, in accordance with which, in order to determine the remuneration seniority of a contractual public servant, previous service periods completed in an employment relationship with a local authority or municipal association of a Member State of the European Economic Area, the Republic of Turkey or the Swiss Confederation, or with an organisation of the European Union or an intergovernmental organisation of which Austria is a member, or with any similar body, must be accredited in their entirety, whereas all other previous service periods are taken into account only up to a maximum of 10 years and in so far as they are relevant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, in accordance with which, in order to determine the remuneration seniority of a contractual public servant, previous service periods completed in an employment relationship with a local authority or municipal association of a Member State of the European Economic Area, the Republic of Turkey or the Swiss Confederation, or with an organisation of the European Union or an intergovernmental organisation of which Austria is a member, or with any similar body, must be accredited in their entirety, whereas all other previous service periods are taken into account only up to a maximum of 10 years and in so far as they are relevant.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — Martin Leitner v Landespolizeidirektion Tirol

(Case C-396/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Exclusion of professional experience acquired before the age of 18 - New system of remuneration and advancement - Maintaining a difference in treatment - Right to an effective remedy - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Justifications)

(2019/C 230/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martin Leitner

Defendant: Landespolizeidirektion Tirol

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which entered into force retroactively, and which, for the purpose of putting a stop to discrimination on grounds of age, provides for the transfer of currently employed civil servants to a new remuneration and advancement system under which the initial classification of those civil servants is determined on the basis of the last salary they received under the previous system. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which entered into force retroactively, and which, for the purpose of putting a stop to discrimination on grounds of age, provides for the transfer of currently employed civil servants to a new remuneration and advancement system under which the initial classification of those civil servants is determined on the basis of the last salary they received under the previous system.

| 2. | Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 9 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, reduces the scope of the review which national courts are entitled to conduct, by excluding questions concerning the basis of the ‘transition amount’ calculated according to the rules of the previous remuneration and advancement system. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 9 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, reduces the scope of the review which national courts are entitled to conduct, by excluding questions concerning the basis of the ‘transition amount’ calculated according to the rules of the previous remuneration and advancement system.

| 3. | In a situation where national provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner which is consistent with Directive 2000/78, the national court is obliged, within the scope of its powers, to guarantee the legal protection conferred on individuals by that directive and to guarantee that that protection is fully effective, by disapplying, if need be, any contrary provision of national law. EU law must be interpreted as meaning that where there has been a finding of discrimination which is contrary to EU law, and for as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, the reinstatement of equal treatment, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, involves granting civil servants disadvantaged by the previous remuneration and advancement system the same benefits as those enjoyed by the civil servants treated more favourably by that system, both as regards the recognition of periods of service completed before the age of 18 and advancement in the pay scale and, accordingly, the award of financial compensation to those civil servants discriminated against in the sum of the difference between the amount of remuneration that the civil servant concerned ought to have received had he not been treated in a discriminatory manner and the remuneration which he in fact received. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In a situation where national provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner which is consistent with Directive 2000/78, the national court is obliged, within the scope of its powers, to guarantee the legal protection conferred on individuals by that directive and to guarantee that that protection is fully effective, by disapplying, if need be, any contrary provision of national law. EU law must be interpreted as meaning that where there has been a finding of discrimination which is contrary to EU law, and for as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, the reinstatement of equal treatment, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, involves granting civil servants disadvantaged by the previous remuneration and advancement system the same benefits as those enjoyed by the civil servants treated more favourably by that system, both as regards the recognition of periods of service completed before the age of 18 and advancement in the pay scale and, accordingly, the award of financial compensation to those civil servants discriminated against in the sum of the difference between the amount of remuneration that the civil servant concerned ought to have received had he not been treated in a discriminatory manner and the remuneration which he in fact received.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Monachos Eirinaios, kata kosmon Antonios Giakoumakis tou Emmanouil v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon

(Case C-431/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/5/EC - Access to the profession of lawyer - Monk who has obtained the professional qualification of lawyer in a Member State other than the host Member State - Article 3(2) - Condition requiring registration with the competent authority of the host Member State - Certificate attesting to registration with the competent authority of the home Member State - Refusal to register - Rules of professional conduct - Incompatibility of the status of monk with practice of the profession of lawyer)

(2019/C 230/04)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Monachos Eirinaios, kata kosmon Antonios Giakoumakis tou Emmanouil

Defendant: Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2) of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, on account of the incompatibility under that legislation between the status of monk and practice of the profession of lawyer, prohibits a lawyer who has the status of monk, and who is registered as a lawyer with the competent authority of the home Member State, from registering with the competent authority of the host Member State in order to practise there under his home-country professional title.

---

(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 — Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank v European Central Bank, European Commission

(Case C-450/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary policy - Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Article 6(4) - Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - Article 70(1) - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Tasks conferred on the European Central Bank (ECB) - Single supervisory mechanism - Performance of those tasks by the national competent authorities - ‘Less significant’ credit institution - ‘Particular circumstances’ justifying a credit institution being considered ‘less significant’)

(2019/C 230/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank (represented by: A. Glos, T. Lübbig and M. Benzing, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou and R. Bax, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Trento — Italy) — Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR v Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti

(Case C-494/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Fixed-term work - Contracts concluded with a public sector employer - Measures to penalise misuse of fixed-term employment contracts - Conversion of the employment relationship into a relationship of indefinite duration - Limitation on the retroactive effect of the conversion - No financial remedies)

(2019/C 230/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR

Defendants: Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation which, as applied by the national supreme courts, precludes any entitlement to financial compensation on account of the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts for public-sector teachers whose employment relationship has been converted from a fixed-term relationship into one of indefinite duration, with limited retroactive effect, if such conversion is neither uncertain nor unpredictable or fortuitous and the limited account taken of the period of service completed under those successive fixed-term employment contracts constitutes a measure that is proportionate for the purpose of punishing that misuse, which is a matter for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Związek Gmin Zagłębia Miedziowego w Polkowicach v Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

(Case C-566/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168(a) - Deduction of input tax - Principle of VAT neutrality - Taxable person engaged in both economic and non-economic activities - Goods and services purchased for the purposes of performing both transactions subject to VAT and non-taxable transactions - Absence of apportionment criteria in national legislation - Principle of lawfulness of the tax)

(2019/C 230/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Związek Gmin Zagłębia Miedziowego w Polkowicach

Defendant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national practice which permits a taxable person to deduct the entirety of the input value added tax (VAT) paid on the purchase of goods and services by that taxable person for the purposes of performing both economic activities, which are subject to VAT, and non-economic activities, which do not come within the scope of VAT, on account of the absence, in the applicable tax legislation, of specific rules on allocation criteria which would allow the taxable person to determine the share of input tax which ought to be deemed to be connected to his economic and non-economic activities respectively.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v L.W. Geelen

(Case C-568/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 9(2)(c) and (e) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 52(a) - Article 56(1)(k) - Supply of services - Place of taxable transactions - Connecting factor for tax purposes - Interactive sessions of an erotic nature filmed and broadcast live on the internet - Entertainment activity - Definition - Place where the services are physically carried out)

(2019/C 230/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financien

Respondent: L.W. Geelen

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 9(2)(c), first indent, of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002, and Article 52(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that a complex service, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in offering interactive sessions of an erotic nature filmed and broadcast live on the internet constitutes an ‘entertainment activity’, within the meaning of those provisions, which must be considered as being ‘physically carried out’, within the meaning of those same provisions, in the place where the service provider has established his place of business or a permanent establishment whence that service is provided or, failing that, in the place of his domicile or habitual residence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 9(2)(c), first indent, of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002, and Article 52(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that a complex service, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in offering interactive sessions of an erotic nature filmed and broadcast live on the internet constitutes an ‘entertainment activity’, within the meaning of those provisions, which must be considered as being ‘physically carried out’, within the meaning of those same provisions, in the place where the service provider has established his place of business or a permanent establishment whence that service is provided or, failing that, in the place of his domicile or habitual residence.

| 2. | Article 9(2)(e), twelfth indent, of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2002/38, and Article 56(1)(k) of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1777/2005 of 17 October 2005 laying down implementing measures for Directive 77/388, must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in offering interactive sessions of an erotic nature filmed and broadcast live on the internet, does not come within the scope of those provisions when that service has been provided to beneficiaries who are all situated in the Member State of the provider of those services. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 9(2)(e), twelfth indent, of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2002/38, and Article 56(1)(k) of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1777/2005 of 17 October 2005 laying down implementing measures for Directive 77/388, must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in offering interactive sessions of an erotic nature filmed and broadcast live on the internet, does not come within the scope of those provisions when that service has been provided to beneficiaries who are all situated in the Member State of the provider of those services.

---

(1)  OJ C 424, 11.2.2017.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Mittetulundusühing Järvelaev v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

(Case C-580/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Applicability ratione temporis - Article 72 - Durability of investment operations - Substantial modification to a co-financed investment operation - Asset acquired by means of an investment operation co-financed by the EAFRD and leased by the beneficiary of the funding to another - Financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1306/2013 - Articles 54 and 56 - Obligation of the Member States to recover sums unduly paid as a result of irregularity or negligence - Concept of ‘irregularity’ - Initiation of recovery proceedings)

(2019/C 230/09)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mittetulundusühing Järvelaev

Defendant: Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The durability of an investment operation which, as in the case in the main proceedings, was approved and co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in the 2007-2013 programming period must be assessed according to Article 72 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Where the recovery of sums unduly paid under that operation takes place after the programming period has come to an end, namely after 1 January 2014, recovery must be based on Article 56 of 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. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The durability of an investment operation which, as in the case in the main proceedings, was approved and co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in the 2007-2013 programming period must be assessed according to Article 72 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Where the recovery of sums unduly paid under that operation takes place after the programming period has come to an end, namely after 1 January 2014, recovery must be based on Article 56 of 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.

| 2. | A lease by the beneficiary of funding, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was paid as part of an investment operation co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) under the Leader axis referred to in Regulation No 1698/2005, of an asset acquired by means of that funding to another who uses it in connection with the same activity as that which the beneficiary of the funding was to exercise may amount to a substantial modification to the co-financed investment operation within the meaning of Article 72(1) of that regulation, which is for the referring court to ascertain in the light of all the elements of fact and of law at issue against the alternative conditions referred to in Article 72(1)(a) and (b) thereof. For the purposes of finding that there has been undue advantage given to a firm or public body within the meaning of Article 72(1)(a) of that regulation, it is for the competent national authority, to determine, subject to review by the relevant national courts, what the undue advantage specifically is. Whilst relevant, whether or not, in the light of the factual and legal situation, the actual user of the funding would have obtained the funding if it had itself submitted a funding application is not conclusive for the purposes of applying Article 72(1)(a) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

2.

A lease by the beneficiary of funding, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was paid as part of an investment operation co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) under the Leader axis referred to in Regulation No 1698/2005, of an asset acquired by means of that funding to another who uses it in connection with the same activity as that which the beneficiary of the funding was to exercise may amount to a substantial modification to the co-financed investment operation within the meaning of Article 72(1) of that regulation, which is for the referring court to ascertain in the light of all the elements of fact and of law at issue against the alternative conditions referred to in Article 72(1)(a) and (b) thereof. For the purposes of finding that there has been undue advantage given to a firm or public body within the meaning of Article 72(1)(a) of that regulation, it is for the competent national authority, to determine, subject to review by the relevant national courts, what the undue advantage specifically is. Whilst relevant, whether or not, in the light of the factual and legal situation, the actual user of the funding would have obtained the funding if it had itself submitted a funding application is not conclusive for the purposes of applying Article 72(1)(a) thereof.

| 3. | Article 72(1) of Regulation No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires the beneficiary of funding paid as part of an investment operation co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) to retain and use itself the asset acquired by means of that investment operation for at least five years from the payment of the final instalment of the funding. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 72(1) of Regulation No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires the beneficiary of funding paid as part of an investment operation co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) to retain and use itself the asset acquired by means of that investment operation for at least five years from the payment of the final instalment of the funding.

| 4. | The first paragraph of Article 56 of Regulation No 1306/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that failure, by the beneficiary of funding awarded as part of an investment operation co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) falling within the Leader axis referred to in Regulation No 1698/2005, to carry out a part of the operation set out by the beneficiary in its application for funding which was one of the criteria on the basis of which the applications for funding were assessed for the purpose of ranking them, despite the fact that that criterion was not required by the relevant national legislation, amounts to an irregularity within the meaning of that provision, provided that the failure to perform such a factor resulted in a substantial modification within the meaning of Article 72(1) of Regulation No 1698/2005 to the investment operation, which is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The first paragraph of Article 56 of Regulation No 1306/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that failure, by the beneficiary of funding awarded as part of an investment operation co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) falling within the Leader axis referred to in Regulation No 1698/2005, to carry out a part of the operation set out by the beneficiary in its application for funding which was one of the criteria on the basis of which the applications for funding were assessed for the purpose of ranking them, despite the fact that that criterion was not required by the relevant national legislation, amounts to an irregularity within the meaning of that provision, provided that the failure to perform such a factor resulted in a substantial modification within the meaning of Article 72(1) of Regulation No 1698/2005 to the investment operation, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

| 5. | Article 56 of Regulation No 1306/2013 must be interpreted as not precluding a recovery procedure for funding unduly paid from being initiated before the end of the five-year period from the managing authority’s financing decision. That provision must also be interpreted as not precluding such a recovery procedure from being continued where, in the course of the procedure, the beneficiary of the funding remedies the failure which justified the initiation of that procedure. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Article 56 of Regulation No 1306/2013 must be interpreted as not precluding a recovery procedure for funding unduly paid from being initiated before the end of the five-year period from the managing authority’s financing decision. That provision must also be interpreted as not precluding such a recovery procedure from being continued where, in the course of the procedure, the beneficiary of the funding remedies the failure which justified the initiation of that procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — SF v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

(Case C-631/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 11(3)(e) - National of a Member State employed as a seaman on board a vessel flying the flag of a third State - Employer established in a Member State other than the worker’s State of residence - Determination of the applicable legislation)

(2019/C 230/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SF

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, must be interpreted to the effect that a situation such as the one at issue in the main proceedings in which a person, whilst working as a seaman for an employer established in a Member State on board a vessel flying the flag of a third State and travelling outside of the territory of the European Union, maintained his residence in his Member State of origin, falls within the scope of that provision, such that the applicable national legislation is that of the Member State of residence of that person.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Lombardia — Italy) — EN.SA. Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

(Case C-712/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Fictitious transactions - Impossibility of deducting the tax - Obligation on the issuer of an invoice to pay the VAT indicated thereon - Fine in an amount equal to the amount of the improperly deducted VAT - Whether compatible with the principles of VAT neutrality and proportionality)

(2019/C 230/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale di Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: EN.SA. Srl

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | In a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which fictitious circular sales of electricity made between the same traders and for the same amounts did not cause tax losses, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principles of neutrality and proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) relating to fictitious transactions while requiring the persons who enter VAT on an invoice to pay that tax, including for a fictitious transaction, provided that national law allows the tax liability arising from that obligation to be adjusted when the issuer of that invoice, who was not acting in good faith, has, in sufficient time, wholly eliminated the risk of any loss of tax revenue, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which fictitious circular sales of electricity made between the same traders and for the same amounts did not cause tax losses, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principles of neutrality and proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) relating to fictitious transactions while requiring the persons who enter VAT on an invoice to pay that tax, including for a fictitious transaction, provided that national law allows the tax liability arising from that obligation to be adjusted when the issuer of that invoice, who was not acting in good faith, has, in sufficient time, wholly eliminated the risk of any loss of tax revenue, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

| 2. | The principles of proportionality and neutrality of value added tax (VAT) must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a rule of national law under which the unlawful deduction of VAT is penalised by a fine equal to the amount of the deduction made. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principles of proportionality and neutrality of value added tax (VAT) must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a rule of national law under which the unlawful deduction of VAT is penalised by a fine equal to the amount of the deduction made.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad — Blagoevgrad — Bulgaria) — Brian Andrew Kerr v Pavlo Postnov, Natalia Postnova

(Case C-25/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(1)(a) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to contract - Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ - Decision of the general meeting of the owners of property in a building - Obligation of the owners to pay annual financial contributions to the budget of the association of property owners as determined by that decision - Legal action seeking enforcement of that decision - Law applicable to contractual obligations - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Article 4(1)(b) and (c) - Concepts of ‘contract for the provision of services’ and ‘a contract relating to a right in rem in immovable property’ - Decision of the general meeting of the owners of property in a building relating to maintenance costs for communal areas)

(2019/C 230/12)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Okrazhen sad — Blagoevgrad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Brian Andrew Kerr

Respondents: Pavlo Postnov, Natalia Postnova

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning a payment obligation arising from a decision taken by a general meeting of the owners of property in a building, which does not have legal personality and has been specifically established by law in order to exercise certain rights, — where that decision has been taken by a majority of members, but binds all members — must be regarded as falling within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning a payment obligation arising from a decision taken by a general meeting of the owners of property in a building, which does not have legal personality and has been specifically established by law in order to exercise certain rights, — where that decision has been taken by a majority of members, but binds all members — must be regarded as falling within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of that provision.

| 2. | Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concerning a payment obligation resulting from a decision of a general meeting of the owners of property in an apartment building, relating to the costs of maintaining the communal areas of that property, must be regarded as relating to a contract for the provision of services, within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concerning a payment obligation resulting from a decision of a general meeting of the owners of property in an apartment building, relating to the costs of maintaining the communal areas of that property, must be regarded as relating to a contract for the provision of services, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-53/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Markets in financial instruments - Directive 2004/39/EC - Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 - Scope - Financial adviser authorised to provide offsite services - Staff member who has become a defendant in criminal proceedings - National legislation providing for the possibility of temporarily prohibiting the exercise of the activity - Fundamental freedoms - Purely internal situation - Not applicable)

(2019/C 230/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC, as amended by Directive 2010/78/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010, in particular Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 thereof, Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a temporary prohibition on exercising the activity of financial adviser authorised to provide offsite services falls neither within the scope of that directive, nor that of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU or that of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality. In such circumstances, Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 of that directive, Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality do not preclude such a prohibition.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — A-PACK CZ s. r. o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-127/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 90 and 273 - Total or partial non-payment, by the debtor, of a sum due to the taxable person in respect of a transaction subject to VAT - Taxable amount - Reduction - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)

(2019/C 230/14)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A-PACK CZ s. r. o.

Respondent: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that a taxable person cannot correct the value added tax (VAT) taxable amount, in the case of total or partial non-payment, by its debtor, of a sum due in respect of a transaction subject to that tax, if the debtor is no longer a taxable person for the purposes of VAT.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León -Spain) — Violeta Villar Láiz v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

(Case C-161/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4 - Prohibition of any discrimination on the ground of sex - Indirect discrimination - Part-time work - Calculation of retirement pension)

(2019/C 230/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Violeta Villar Láiz

Respondent: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the amount of retirement pension based on contributions of a part-time worker is to be calculated by multiplying a basic amount, established from the remuneration actually received and contributions actually paid, by a percentage which relates to the length of the period of contribution, that period being itself modified, by a reduction factor equal to the ratio of the time of part-time work actually carried out to the time of work carried out by a comparable full-time worker, and increased by the application of a factor of 1.5, to the extent that that legislation places at a particular disadvantage workers who are women as compared with workers who are men.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Jadran Dodič v Banka Koper, Alta Invest

(Case C-194/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Transfers of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 1(1) - Scope - Criteria for assessment of the transfer - Transfer of clients - Transfer of all the financial services of a bank, excluding staff, to a stock brokering company)

(2019/C 230/16)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Jadran Dodič

Respondents: Banka Koper, Alta Invest

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, must be interpreted as meaning that the transfer, to a second undertaking, of financial instruments and other assets of the clients of a first undertaking, following the cessation of the first undertaking’s activity, under a contract the conclusion of which is required by national legislation, even though the first undertaking’s clients remain free not to entrust the management of their stock market securities to the second undertaking, may constitute a transfer of an undertaking or of part of an undertaking if it is established that there was a transfer of clients, that being a matter for the referring court to determine. In that context, the number of clients actually transferred, even if very high, is not, in itself, decisive as regards classification as a ‘transfer’ and the fact that the first undertaking cooperates with the second undertaking as a dependent stock-exchange intermediary, is, in principle, irrelevant.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol — Austria) — PI v Landespolizeidirektion Tirol

(Case C-230/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Article 15(2) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Restriction - Decision to immediately close a commercial enterprise - No statement of reasons - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Prevention of criminal offences against persons engaged in prostitution - Protection of public health - Proportionality of the restriction on the freedom of establishment - Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Effectiveness of judicial review - Rights of defence - General principle of the right to good administration)

(2019/C 230/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol

Parties to the main proceedings

Complainant: PI

Defendant authority: Landespolizeidirektion Tirol

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU, Article 15(2) and Articles 16, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principle of the right to good administration must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, as precluding national legislation providing that an administrative authority may decide to close a commercial establishment with immediate effect, on the ground that it suspects that prostitution is practised in that establishment without the authorisation required under that legislation, in so far as that legislation, first, does not require reasons, in fact and in law, to be given in writing for such a decision and to be communicated to its addressee, and second, requires that any application brought by that addressee and seeking annulment of that decision must be reasoned.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/15

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 — European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion for Energy v Yosu Galocha

(Case C-243/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Competition - Judgment annulling a decision - Extent of the annulment - Weighing up of interests involved - Annulment of reserve lists - Annulment of the decisions to appoint successful candidates from those lists)

(2019/C 230/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion for Energy (represented by: G. Poszler and R. Hanak, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Yosu Galocha (represented by: A. Asmaryan Degtyareva, abogada)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion for Energy to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion for Energy to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Stadt Euskirchen v Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-253/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Public passenger transport services by rail and by road - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Article 5(1) and (2) - Direct award - Contracts for public passenger transport services by bus and by tram - Conditions - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 12 - Directive 2014/25/EU - Article 28)

(2019/C 230/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stadt Euskirchen

Defendant: Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG

Joined parties: SVE Stadtverkehr Euskirchen GmbH, RVK Regionalverkehr Köln GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to the direct award of contracts relating to public passenger transport services by bus which do not take the form of service concessions contracts within the meaning of Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Verdi Ambiente e Società (VAS) — Aps Onlus, Movimento Legge Rifiuti Zero per l’Economia Circolare Aps v Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri and Others

(Case C-305/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2008/98/EC - Disposal or recovery of waste - Establishment of an integrated waste management system guaranteeing national self-sufficiency - Construction of incineration facilities or increase in capacity of existing facilities - Classification of incineration facilities as ‘strategic infrastructure and installations of major national importance’ - Compliance with the ‘waste hierarchy’ principle - Directive 2001/42/EC - Need to carry out an ‘environmental assessment’)

(2019/C 230/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Verdi Ambiente e Società (VAS) — Aps Onlus, Movimento Legge Rifiuti Zero per l’Economia Circolare Aps

Defendants: Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Regione Lazio, Regione Toscana, Regione Lombardia

Interveners: Associazione Mamme per la Salute e l’Ambiente Onlus, Comitato Donne 29 Agosto

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The ‘waste hierarchy’ principle, as expressed in Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, read in the light of Article 13 thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which classifies waste incineration facilities as ‘strategic infrastructure and installations of major national importance’, as long as that legislation is compatible with the other provisions of that directive which lay down more specific obligations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The ‘waste hierarchy’ principle, as expressed in Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, read in the light of Article 13 thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which classifies waste incineration facilities as ‘strategic infrastructure and installations of major national importance’, as long as that legislation is compatible with the other provisions of that directive which lay down more specific obligations.

| 2. | Article 2(a), Article 3(1), and Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, comprising basic legislation and implementing legislation, which revises upwards the capacity of existing waste incineration facilities and which provides for the construction of new installations of that kind, comes under the notion of ‘plans and programmes’, within the meaning of that directive, where it is likely to have significant environmental effects and must, consequently, be subject to a prior environmental assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(a), Article 3(1), and Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, comprising basic legislation and implementing legislation, which revises upwards the capacity of existing waste incineration facilities and which provides for the construction of new installations of that kind, comes under the notion of ‘plans and programmes’, within the meaning of that directive, where it is likely to have significant environmental effects and must, consequently, be subject to a prior environmental assessment.

---

(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/18

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — RE v Praxair MRC SAS

(Case C-486/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 96/34/EC - Framework agreement on parental leave - Clause 2.6 - Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave - Dismissal - Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance - Method of calculation - Article 157 TFEU - Equal pay for male and female workers - Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers - Indirect discrimination - Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination - None)

(2019/C 230/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RE

Defendant: Praxair MRC SAS

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Clause 2.6 of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995, which is annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997, must be interpreted as precluding, where a worker employed full-time and for an indefinite duration is dismissed at the time he is on part-time parental leave, the compensation payment for dismissal and the redeployment leave allowance to be paid to that worker being determined at least in part on the basis of the reduced salary which he receives when the dismissal takes place. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Clause 2.6 of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995, which is annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997, must be interpreted as precluding, where a worker employed full-time and for an indefinite duration is dismissed at the time he is on part-time parental leave, the compensation payment for dismissal and the redeployment leave allowance to be paid to that worker being determined at least in part on the basis of the reduced salary which he receives when the dismissal takes place.

| 2. | Article 157 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation such as that in the main proceedings which provides that, where a worker employed full-time and for an indefinite duration is dismissed at the time he is on part-time parental leave, that worker receives a compensation payment for dismissal and a redeployment leave allowance determined at least in part on the basis of the reduced salary being received when the dismissal takes place, in circumstances when a far greater number of women than men choose to take part-time parental leave and when that difference in treatment which results therefrom cannot be explained by objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 157 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation such as that in the main proceedings which provides that, where a worker employed full-time and for an indefinite duration is dismissed at the time he is on part-time parental leave, that worker receives a compensation payment for dismissal and a redeployment leave allowance determined at least in part on the basis of the reduced salary being received when the dismissal takes place, in circumstances when a far greater number of women than men choose to take part-time parental leave and when that difference in treatment which results therefrom cannot be explained by objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/19

---

Appeal brought on 10 December 2018 by Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2018 in Case T-374/17 Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira

(Case C-780/18 P)

(2019/C 230/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, S.L. (represented by: S. Ferrandis González and K. Gibas, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and A. Salgado Nespereira, S.A.

By order of 22 May 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, S.L. to bear its own costs.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC, Google Inc.

(Case C-264/19)

(2019/C 230/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Constantin Film Verleih GmbH

Defendants: YouTube LLC, Google Inc.

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the addresses of the producers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and other previous holders of the goods or services, as well as the intended wholesalers and retailers, mentioned in Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) and covered, as appropriate, by the information referred to in Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC, also include






  (a) | the email addresses of service users and/or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Do the addresses of the producers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and other previous holders of the goods or services, as well as the intended wholesalers and retailers, mentioned in Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) and covered, as appropriate, by the information referred to in Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC, also include

(a)

the email addresses of service users and/or

| (b) | the telephone numbers of service users and/or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the telephone numbers of service users and/or

| (c) | the IP addresses used by service users to upload infringing files, together with the precise point in time at which such uploading took place? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the IP addresses used by service users to upload infringing files, together with the precise point in time at which such uploading took place?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1(c) is in the affirmative:
  Does the information to be provided under Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC also cover the IP address that a user, who has previously uploaded infringing files, last used to access his or her Google/YouTube user account, together with the precise point in time at which access took place, irrespective of whether any infringement was committed when that account was last accessed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1(c) is in the affirmative:

Does the information to be provided under Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC also cover the IP address that a user, who has previously uploaded infringing files, last used to access his or her Google/YouTube user account, together with the precise point in time at which access took place, irrespective of whether any infringement was committed when that account was last accessed?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 March 2019 — EIS GmbH v TO

(Case C-266/19)

(2019/C 230/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EIS GmbH

Defendant: TO

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a telephone number ‘available’ within the meaning of the instructions for completion for model instructions on withdrawal set out in Annex I.A to Directive 2011/83/EU (1) if the trader specifies the telephone number within the legal notice or clearly and explicitly displays it on the homepage of his website? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a telephone number ‘available’ within the meaning of the instructions for completion for model instructions on withdrawal set out in Annex I.A to Directive 2011/83/EU (1) if the trader specifies the telephone number within the legal notice or clearly and explicitly displays it on the homepage of his website?

| 2. | Is a telephone number ‘available’ within the meaning of the instructions for completion for model instructions on withdrawal set out in Annex I.A to Directive 2011/83/EU if, although the trader uses the telephone connection for commercial purposes, he does not use it to enter into distance contracts and therefore does not operate it for the purpose of terminating distance contracts in the form of an acceptance of notices of withdrawal either? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a telephone number ‘available’ within the meaning of the instructions for completion for model instructions on withdrawal set out in Annex I.A to Directive 2011/83/EU if, although the trader uses the telephone connection for commercial purposes, he does not use it to enter into distance contracts and therefore does not operate it for the purpose of terminating distance contracts in the form of an acceptance of notices of withdrawal either?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 3 April 2019 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v WR

(Case C-279/19)

(2019/C 230/25)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondent: WR

Questions referred

| 1) | Is a person (‘P’) who is in physical possession of excise goods at a point when those goods become chargeable to excise duty in Member State B, liable for that excise duty pursuant to Article 33(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC (1) in circumstances where that person:






  a) | had no legal or beneficial interest in the excise goods; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

Is a person (‘P’) who is in physical possession of excise goods at a point when those goods become chargeable to excise duty in Member State B, liable for that excise duty pursuant to Article 33(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC (1) in circumstances where that person:

a)

had no legal or beneficial interest in the excise goods;

| b) | was transporting the excise goods, for a fee, on behalf of others between Member State A and Member State B; and |
| --- | --- |

b)

was transporting the excise goods, for a fee, on behalf of others between Member State A and Member State B; and

| c) | knew that the goods he was in possession of were excise goods but did not know and did not have reason to suspect that the goods had become chargeable to excise duty in Member State B at or prior to the time that they became so chargeable? |
| --- | --- |

c)

knew that the goods he was in possession of were excise goods but did not know and did not have reason to suspect that the goods had become chargeable to excise duty in Member State B at or prior to the time that they became so chargeable?

| 2) | Is the answer to Question 1 different if P did not know that the goods he was in possession of were excise goods? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Is the answer to Question 1 different if P did not know that the goods he was in possession of were excise goods?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009, L 9, p. 12).

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 April 2019 — Naturschutzbund Deutschland — Landesverband Schleswig-Holstein e.V. v Kreis Nordfriesland

(Case C-297/19)

(2019/C 230/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Naturschutzbund Deutschland — Landesverband Schleswig-Holstein e.V.

Defendant: Kreis Nordfriesland

Joined party: Deich- und Hauptsielverband Eiderstedt, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts,

Other party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Questions referred

| 1. | (a) | Does the term ‘management’ within the meaning of the second indent of the second paragraph of Annex I to Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (Environmental Liability Directive) (1) include activities inextricably bound up with direct use for land yield purposes?
  If so: |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Does the term ‘management’ within the meaning of the second indent of the second paragraph of Annex I to Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (Environmental Liability Directive) (1) include activities inextricably bound up with direct use for land yield purposes?

If so:

| (b) | Under what conditions is the management of sites, as defined in habitat records or target documents, to be considered ‘normal’ within the meaning of the Environmental Liability Directive? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Under what conditions is the management of sites, as defined in habitat records or target documents, to be considered ‘normal’ within the meaning of the Environmental Liability Directive?

| (c) | What is the time-scale for deciding if management is ‘as carried on previously’ by owners or operators within the meaning of the Environmental Liability Directive? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

What is the time-scale for deciding if management is ‘as carried on previously’ by owners or operators within the meaning of the Environmental Liability Directive?

| (d) | Should the question of whether management is as carried on previously by owners or operators within the meaning of the Environmental Liability Directive be answered independently of the habitat records or target documents? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Should the question of whether management is as carried on previously by owners or operators within the meaning of the Environmental Liability Directive be answered independently of the habitat records or target documents?

| 2. | Does an activity exercised in the public interest on the basis of a statutory delegation of tasks constitute an ‘occupational activity’ within the meaning of Article 2(7) of the Environmental Liability Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does an activity exercised in the public interest on the basis of a statutory delegation of tasks constitute an ‘occupational activity’ within the meaning of Article 2(7) of the Environmental Liability Directive?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria) lodged on 30 April 2019 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG

(Case C-343/19)

(2019/C 230/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Klagenfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Defendant and respondent: Volkswagen AG

Question referred

Is point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ may be construed as the place in a Member State where the damage occurred, when that damage consists exclusively of financial damage that is the direct result of an unlawful act committed in another Member State?

---

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

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Novartis AG v Patent-och registreringsverket

(Case C-354/19)

(2019/C 230/28)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Novartis AG

Other party: Patent-och registreringsverket

Question referred

In view of the fundamental purpose which the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products is intended to fulfil, namely that of stimulating pharmaceutical research in the European Union, does Article 3(c) of Regulation No 469/2009, (1) having regard to Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1610/96, preclude an applicant who has previously been granted a supplementary protection certificate in respect of a product protected by a basic patent, in force in respect of the product per se, from being granted a supplementary protection certificate for a new use of the product in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which the new use constitutes a new therapeutic indication which is specifically protected by a new basic patent?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1).

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/24

---

Appeal brought on 17 May 2019 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-135/15 Italy v Commission

(Case C-390/19 P)

(2019/C 230/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, C. Colelli, avvocato dello Stato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Hungary

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside, in so far as it is the subject matter of the present appeal, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 March 2019, Case T-135/15, Italy v Commission, notified on 13 March 2019, dismissing the action brought under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by the Italian Republic against Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 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(2015) 53); (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside, in so far as it is the subject matter of the present appeal, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 March 2019, Case T-135/15, Italy v Commission, notified on 13 March 2019, dismissing the action brought under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by the Italian Republic against Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 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(2015) 53); (1)

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| (1) | Infringement of Regulations No 320/2006 and No 968/2006. Infringement of Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November 2013, SFIR and Others, C-187/12 to C-189/12
  By its first ground of appeal, the appellant takes issue with the judgment under appeal in so far as it wrongly identified the time at which it was necessary to examine whether the silos kept in the sugar-beet factories receiving aid did or did not have the characteristics of a ‘production facility’ and whether or not it was lawful to maintain them in cases in which applications for financial aid had been made for the total dismantling of the facilities. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Infringement of Regulations No 320/2006 and No 968/2006. Infringement of Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November 2013, SFIR and Others, C-187/12 to C-189/12

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant takes issue with the judgment under appeal in so far as it wrongly identified the time at which it was necessary to examine whether the silos kept in the sugar-beet factories receiving aid did or did not have the characteristics of a ‘production facility’ and whether or not it was lawful to maintain them in cases in which applications for financial aid had been made for the total dismantling of the facilities.

| (2) | Infringement of the Commission’s Guidelines set out in Document No VI/5330/97
  By its second ground of appeal, the appellant criticises the contested decision in so far as the General Court — despite having found that the case in question satisfied both the conditions set out in Annex 2 to the Guidelines for the purpose of establishing one of the ‘borderline cases’, which the EU legislature considered relevant for the purpose of excluding or reducing the financial correction — considered the Commission’s decision not to apply the ‘borderline case’ to be lawful. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Infringement of the Commission’s Guidelines set out in Document No VI/5330/97

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant criticises the contested decision in so far as the General Court — despite having found that the case in question satisfied both the conditions set out in Annex 2 to the Guidelines for the purpose of establishing one of the ‘borderline cases’, which the EU legislature considered relevant for the purpose of excluding or reducing the financial correction — considered the Commission’s decision not to apply the ‘borderline case’ to be lawful.

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33.

---

GCEU

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Ertico — ITS Europe v Commission

(Case T-604/15) (1)

(Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Decision of the Commission’s Validation Panel on qualification as a micro, small and medium-sized business - Request for review under sections 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 of the Annex to Decision 2012/838/EU, Euratom - No administrative appeal within the meaning of Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Res judicata - Criteria for the definition of micro, small and medium-sized businesses in EU policies - Concept of an ‘enterprise’ - Concept of an ‘economic activity’ - Criterion of independence - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 230/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — ITS Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Wellinger and K. T’Syen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal and M. Clausen and, subsequently, R. Lyal and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Validation Panel of 18 August 2015 provided for under section 1.2.7 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2012/838/EU, Euratom of 18 December 2012 on the adoption of the Rules to ensure consistent verification of the existence and legal status of participants, as well as their operational and financial capacities, in indirect actions supported through the form of a grant under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities and under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (OJ 2012 L 359, p. 45), in so far as that decision concludes that the applicant does not qualify as a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — ITS Europe) to bear one half of its costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — ITS Europe) to bear one half of its costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half of the costs incurred by Ertico — ITS Europe. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half of the costs incurred by Ertico — ITS Europe.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Andrea Incontri v EUIPO — Higicol (ANDREA INCONTRI)

(Case T-197/16) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the European Union word mark ANDREA INCONTRI - Earlier European Union word mark ANDREIA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character of a first name and a surname - Power to alter decisions)

(2019/C 230/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Incontri Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and J. Graffer, 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: Higicol, SA (Baguim do monte, Portugal) (represented by: Á. Pinho and J.M. Pimenta, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2016 (Case R 146/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Higicol and Andrea Incontri.

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 25 February 2016 (Case R 146/2015-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 February 2016 (Case R 146/2015-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay half of the costs incurred by Andrea Incontri Srl, including the costs which the latter necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay half of the costs incurred by Andrea Incontri Srl, including the costs which the latter necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

| 3. | Orders Higicol, SA, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay half of the costs incurred by Andrea Incontri Srl, including the costs which the latter necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Higicol, SA, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay half of the costs incurred by Andrea Incontri Srl, including the costs which the latter necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Enrico Colombo and Corinti Giacomo v Commission

(Case T-690/16) (1)

(Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - JRC in Ispra - Works for the construction and maintenance of water pipes and district heating/cooling substations - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Action for annulment - Action for damages - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 230/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Enrico Colombo (Sesto Calende, Italy) and Corinti Giacomo (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: R. Colombo and G. Turri, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission (represented by: initially, S. Delaude, L. Di Paolo and P. Rosa Plaza, then S. Delaude and L. Di Paolo and, lastly, S. Delaude and A. Spina, Agents)

Re:

First, application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU and seeking, in essence, annulment of the Commission’s decisions rejecting the tender submitted by the applicants in connection with the tendering procedure JRC/IPR/2016/C4/0002/OC, concerning a Framework agreement for the construction and maintenance of water pipes and heating/cooling substations at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra (Italy) and awarding that contract to another tenderer and, secondly, application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Enrico Colombo SpA and Corinti Giacomo to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Enrico Colombo SpA and Corinti Giacomo to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Real Madrid Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-791/16) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to a professional football club - Settlement aimed atcompensating for a failure to carry out a land transfer initially agreed between a city council and a football club - Football club overcompensated - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Advantage)

(2019/C 230/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Real Madrid Club de Fútbol (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Pérez-Bustamante Köster and F. Löwhagen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal, G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2393 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.33754 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for Real Madrid CF (OJ 2016 L 358, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2393 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.33754 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for Real Madrid CF; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2393 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.33754 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for Real Madrid CF;

| 2. | Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Real Madrid Club de Fútbol. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Real Madrid Club de Fútbol.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Poland v Commission

(Joined Cases T-836/16 and T-624/17) (1)

(State aid - Polish tax on the retail sector - Progressive tax levied on turnover - Decision to open the formal investigation procedure - Final decision classifying the measure as State aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Condition relating to selectivity)

(2019/C 230/34)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Rzotkiewicz and A. Kramarczyk-Szaładzińska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Hungary (represented by: in Case T-836/16, M. Fehér, G. Koós and E. Tóth, and in Case T-624/17, M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Commission Decision C(2016) 5596 final of 19 September 2016 on the State Aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) — Poland — Polish tax on the retail sector, opening the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of that measure and, secondly, Commission Decision (EU) 2018/160 of 30 June 2017 on the State aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Poland for the tax on the retail sector (OJ 2018 L 29, p.38), closing the procedure and according to which that measure constitutes State aid incompatible with the internal market which has been unlawfully implemented.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 5596 final of 19 September 2016 on the State Aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) — Poland — Polish tax on the retail sector; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 5596 final of 19 September 2016 on the State Aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) — Poland — Polish tax on the retail sector;

| 2. | Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2018/160 of 30 June 2017 on the State aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Poland for the tax on the retail sector; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2018/160 of 30 June 2017 on the State aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Poland for the tax on the retail sector;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland in Cases T-836/16 and T-624/17; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland in Cases T-836/16 and T-624/17;

| 4. | Orders Hungary to bear its own costs in Cases T-836/6 and T-624/17. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Hungary to bear its own costs in Cases T-836/6 and T-624/17.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Bank Tejarat v Council

(Case T-37/17) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant following its inclusion and re-inclusion in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures at issue - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

(2019/C 230/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Tejarat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, K. Mittal, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, T. Otty QC, R. Blakeley, V. Zaiwalla, H. Leith, Barristers, and T. de la Mare QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. Vitro, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Havas and J. Norris, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant as a result of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 1), Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2012 of 2 August 2012 implementing Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 208, p. 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bank Tejarat to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bank Tejarat to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Steinhoff and Others v ECB

(Case T-107/17) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - ECB - National central banks - Restructuring of the Greek public debt - Involvement of the private sector - Collective action clauses - Mandatory exchange of Greek bonds - Private creditors - Opinion of the ECB - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Principle of pacta sunt servanda - Article 17(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 63(1) TFEU - Article 124 TFUE)

(2019/C 230/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Frank Steinhoff (Hamburg, Germany), Ewald Filbry, (Dortmund, Germany), Vereinigte Raiffeisenbanken Gräfenberg-Forchheim-Eschenau-Heroldsberg eG (Gräfenberg, Germany), Werner Bäcker (Rodgau, Germany), EMB Consulting SE (Mühltal, Germany) (represented by: O. Hoepner and D. Unrau, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: O. Heinz and G. Várhelyi, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking restitution of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants due to the fact that the ECB failed, in its Opinion of 17 February 2012 (CON/2012/12), to draw the attention of the Republic of Greece to the unlawful nature of the proposed restructuring of the Greek public debt by a mandatory exchange of bonds.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Frank Steinhoff, Mr Ewald Filbry, Vereinigte Raiffeisenbanken Gräfenberg-Forchheim-Eschenau-Heroldsberg eG, Mr Werner Bäcker and EMB Consulting SE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Frank Steinhoff, Mr Ewald Filbry, Vereinigte Raiffeisenbanken Gräfenberg-Forchheim-Eschenau-Heroldsberg eG, Mr Werner Bäcker and EMB Consulting SE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Marinvest and Porting v Commission

(Case T-728/17) (1)

(State aid - Pleasure port infrastructure - Concession for the management of a port and the provision of infrastructures and services without economic consideration - Decision finding that there is no State aid - Effect on trade between Member States)

(2019/C 230/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Marinvest d.o.o. (Izola, Slovenia) and Porting d.o.o. (Izola) (represented by: G. Cecovini Amigoni and L. Daniele, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli, S. Noë and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze and R. Kanitz, and subsequently R. Kanitz, acting as Agents), Javno podjetje komunala Izola d.o.o. (Izola, Slovenia) (represented by: A. Mužina, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission decision C(2017) 5049 final of 20 July 2017 on State aid SA.45220 (2016/FC) — Slovenia — Alleged aid in favour of Komunala Izola d.o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Marinvest d.o.o. and Porting d.o.o. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Marinvest d.o.o. and Porting d.o.o. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Javno podjetje komunala Izola d.o.o. to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Javno podjetje komunala Izola d.o.o. to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — GMPO v Commission

(Case T-733/17) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 - Definition of ‘significant benefit’ - Availability of orphan medicinal products - Article 5(12)(b) of Regulation No 141/2000 - Commission decision to remove a medicinal product from the Register of Orphan Medicinal Products - Error of assessment - Error of law - Legitimate expectations)

(2019/C 230/38)

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:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment 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 for ‘Cuprior-trientine’, a medicinal product for human use, in so far as the Commission decided, in Article 5 of that decision, that that medicinal product no longer satisfied the criteria laid down in 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) to be registered as an orphan medicinal product and that the European Union Register of Orphan Medicinal Products should be updated accordingly.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders GMP-Orphan (GMPO) to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders GMP-Orphan (GMPO) to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Commune de Fessenheim and Others v Commission

(Case T-751/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Letter sent by the Commission to the French authorities regarding the protocol for the compensation of the EDF Group in respect of the repeal of the permit to operate the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption of confidentiality - Overriding public interest)

(2019/C 230/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Commune de Fessenheim (France), Communauté de communes Pays Rhin-Brisach (Volgelsheim, France), Conseil départemental du Haut-Rhin (Colmar, France), Conseil régional Grand Est Alsace Champagne-Ardenne Lorraine (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: G. de Rubercy, lawyer)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier, B. Fodda and J.-L. Carré, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission Decision of 18 October 2017 refusing access to the letter which it sent to the French authorities on 22 March 2017 regarding the draft protocol for the compensation of the Électricité de France (EDF) Group in respect of the closure of the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commune de Fessenheim, the communauté de communes Pays Rhin-Brisach, the conseil départemental du Haut-Rhin and the conseil régional Grand Est Alsace Champagne-Ardenne Lorraine to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commune de Fessenheim, the communauté de communes Pays Rhin-Brisach, the conseil départemental du Haut-Rhin and the conseil régional Grand Est Alsace Champagne-Ardenne Lorraine to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

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

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Moreira v EUIPO — Da Silva Santos Júnior (NEYMAR)

(Case T-795/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark NEYMAR - Declaration of invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 230/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Moreira (Guimarães, Portugal) (represented by: T. Soares Faria, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Neymar Da Silva Santos Júnior (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: initially T. de Haan, H. Abraham and P. Péters, subsequently by T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2017 (Case R 80/2017-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Da Silva Santos Júnior and Mr Moreira.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Carlos Moreira to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Carlos Moreira to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Nerantzaki v Commission

(Case T-813/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition EPSO/AD/331/16 - Conditions for admission - Decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition - Error of law)

(2019/C 230/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eleni Nerantzaki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: N. Korogiannakis, and subsequently by L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: P. Mihaylova and L. Radu Bouyon, and subsequently by L. Radu Bouyon, D. Milanowska and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of, first, the decision of the selection board of 15 May 2017 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of Open Competition EPSO/AD/331/16 and, second, the decision of the appointing authority of 14 September 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of the competition selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of that competition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the selection board of 15 May 2017 not to admit Ms Eleni Nerantzaki to the next stage of Open Competition EPSO/AD/331/16; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the selection board of 15 May 2017 not to admit Ms Eleni Nerantzaki to the next stage of Open Competition EPSO/AD/331/16;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR)

(Joined Cases T-3/18 and T-4/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word and figurative marks ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR - Absolute ground for invalidity - Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Bad faith)

(2019/C 230/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco and A. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Annco, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: D. Rose, J. Warner, E. Preston, Solicitors, and P. Roberts, QC)

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 and of 8 November 2017 (Cases R 2370/2016-2 and R 2371/2016-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Annco and Holzer y Cia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Holzer y Cia, SA de CV to bear its own costs and those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Annco, Inc. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Holzer y Cia, SA de CV to bear its own costs and those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Annco, Inc.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph)

(Case T-12/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Triumph - Earlier EU word mark TRIUMPH - Partial rejection of the application for registration - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identical signs - Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use - Similarity between products - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 230/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zweirad-Center Stadler GmbH (Regensburg, Germany) (initially represented by: P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, subsequently by P. Ruess, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Triumph Designs Ltd (Swadlincote, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2017 (Case R 665/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Triumph Designs and Zweirad-Center Stadler.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Zweirad-Center Stadler GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zweirad-Center Stadler GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders Triumph Designs Ltd to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Triumph Designs Ltd to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński v EUIPO — Heinrich Bauer Verlag (Brave Paper)

(Case T-37/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Brave Paper - Earlier national word mark BRAVO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Conceptual similarity)

(2019/C 230/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Pruszczyk, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Heinrich Bauer Verlag KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Grübler, S. Engels and C. Engelmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 (Case R 391/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Heinrich Bauer Verlag and Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol and CAFE DEL SOL)

(Joined Cases T-89/18 and T-90/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for the EU word and figurative marks Café del Sol and CAFE DEL SOL - Earlier national figurative mark Café del Sol - Proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark - Translation - Rights of the defence - Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 230/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, Germany)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Cases R 1095/2017-4 and R 1096/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 December 2017 (Cases R 1095/2017-4 and R 1096/2017-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Ramón Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 December 2017 (Cases R 1095/2017-4 and R 1096/2017-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Ramón Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul GmbH;

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

2.

Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO and Mr Guiral Broto each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO and Mr Guiral Broto each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Stamatopoulos v ENISA

(Case T-99/18) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Appointment to a post of head of unit - Rejection of application - Duty to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Transparency - Liability)

(2019/C 230/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grigorios Stamatopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (represented by: A. Ryan, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, first, for annulment of ENISA’s decision of 25 July 2017 rejecting the applicant’s application for the position of Head of Finance and Procurement and, second, for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Grigorios Stamatopoulos to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Grigorios Stamatopoulos to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2019 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA

(Case T-104/18) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Development of a system to monitor process and quality in the sector of industrial food production - Food-Watch Project - Overlap of the project with another project funded under the same programme - Information requirements on beneficiaries - Decision to demand repayment of the financial contribution paid under the grant agreement)

(2019/C 230/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (San Sebastián, Spain) (represented by: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Rius Coma, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking, in essence, a declaration that the applicant is not required to repay the grant awarded for the project FP7-SME 2013 605879 (Food-Watch).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Lucchini v Commission

(Case T-185/18) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Partial annulment of the Commission decision - Rejection of a request for reimbursement of a fine paid pursuant to a decision annulled in part - Rejection of a request to be allowed to participate in the administrative procedure that was reopened following the partial annulment of the decision - Rights of the defence - Non-existent act - Non-contractual liability - Limitation)

(2019/C 230/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Lucchini SpA in AS (Piombino, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, G. Conte and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s letter of 17 January 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request to be reimbursed for the fine, in the amount of EUR 14 350 000, that was imposed on it by Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 concerning an infringement of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty, in accordance with Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, re-adoption) and of the Commission’s letter of 9 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request to be allowed to participate in the resumed procedure relating to that case and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union committed by the Commission in the procedure leading to the adoption of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lucchini SpA in AS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lucchini SpA in AS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Transtec v Commission

(Case T-228/18) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Framework contract for the provision of services - Services to third countries benefiting from external aid - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to other tenderers - Allegations of grave professional misconduct against a tenderer - No final judgment or final administrative decision establishing grave professional misconduct - Conditions for referral to the panel referred to in Article 108 of the Financial Regulation - Abnormally low tenders - Duty to state reasons - Taking into account of a letter sent by the awarding authority after the action had been brought - Right to an effective remedy - Standstill period for bringing an action against the award decision - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination - Articles 105a, 106, 108, 113 and 118 of the Financial Regulation - Non-contractual liability)

(2019/C 230/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Transtec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

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

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 26 March 2018, rejecting the tender for Lot 3 submitted by the consortium of which the applicant was the leader, in call for tenders EuropeAid/138778/DH/SER/Multi, entitled ‘Framework contract for the implementation of external aid 2018 (FWC SIEA 2018) 2017/S’, and the award of the contract to other tenderers and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU, seeking compensation for the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered due to this rejection.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Transtec to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Transtec to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf Italia (ZARA)

(Case T-269/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ZARA - Earlier national word and figurative marks LE DELIZIE ZARA and ZARA - Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 230/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ffauf Italia SpA (Riese Pio X, Italy) (represented by: P. Creta, A. Lanzarini, B. Costa, A. Sponzilli and M. Lazzarotto, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2018 (Joined Cases R 359/2015-5 and R 409/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ffauf Italia and Inditex.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 February 2018 (Joined Cases R 359/2015-5 and R 409/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ffauf Italia SA and Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex), as regards ‘preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats’ in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, ‘rice, tapioca, sago, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry; yeast, baking-powder; salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; rice-based snack food’ in Class 30, ‘fresh vegetables’ in Class 31, ‘fresh juices’ in Class 32, ‘retailing and wholesaling in shops, selling via global computer networks, by catalogue, by mail order, by telephone, by radio and television, and via other electronic means of preserved, frozen, dried and cooked vegetables; edible oils, rice, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, vinegar, sauces (condiments)’ in Class 35 and ‘restaurant services (food), self-service restaurants, cafeterias’ in Class 43; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 February 2018 (Joined Cases R 359/2015-5 and R 409/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ffauf Italia SA and Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex), as regards ‘preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats’ in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, ‘rice, tapioca, sago, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry; yeast, baking-powder; salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; rice-based snack food’ in Class 30, ‘fresh vegetables’ in Class 31, ‘fresh juices’ in Class 32, ‘retailing and wholesaling in shops, selling via global computer networks, by catalogue, by mail order, by telephone, by radio and television, and via other electronic means of preserved, frozen, dried and cooked vegetables; edible oils, rice, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, vinegar, sauces (condiments)’ in Class 35 and ‘restaurant services (food), self-service restaurants, cafeterias’ in Class 43;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO and Ffauf Italia to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Industria de Diseño Textil (Inditex) in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO and Ffauf Italia to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Industria de Diseño Textil (Inditex) in the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a golden bottle)

(Case T-324/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a golden bottle - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 230/51)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl (Trebaseleghe, Italy) (represented by: L. Giove, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sandro Bottega (Colle Umberto, Italy) (represented by: R. Galli, lawyer

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 1036/2017-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between VI.TO. and Mr Bottega.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a pink bottle)

(Case T-325/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a pink bottle - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 230/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl (Trebaseleghe, Italy) (represented by: L. Giove, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sandro Bottega (Colle Umberto, Italy) (represented by: R. Galli, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 1037/2017-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between VI.TO. and Mr Bottega.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — KID-Systeme v EUIPO — Sky (SKYFi)

(Case T-354/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SKYFi - Earlier national and EU word marks SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Identity of goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Suspension of the administrative procedure - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Misuse of powers - Right to a fair trial - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal - Article 96 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 230/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KID-Systeme GmbH (Buxtehude, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sky Ltd, formerly Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Saliger, Solicitor, and P. Roberts QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2018 (Case R 106/2017-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sky and KID-Systeme.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders KID-Systeme GmbH to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders KID-Systeme GmbH to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)

(Case T-465/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 230/54)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Argyriadis, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 (Case R 1358/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)

(Case T-466/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 230/55)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Argyriadis, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 (Case R 1359/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Battelle Memorial Institute v EUIPO (HEATCOAT)

(Case T-469/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark HEATCOAT - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration)

(2019/C 230/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Battelle Memorial Institute (Columbus, Ohio, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth QC)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2018 (Case R 36/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign HEATCOAT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Battelle Memorial Institute to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Battelle Memorial Institute to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — mobile.de v EUIPO (Representation of a car in a speech bubble)

(Case T-629/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a car in a speech bubble - Admissibility of the action before the Board of Appeal - Article 49(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Restriction of the list of goods or services covered by the mark applied for - Article 27(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Obligation to adjudicate on a request for restriction)

(2019/C 230/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: mobile.de GmbH (Dreilinden, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 August 2018 (Case R 2653/2017-4), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a car in a speech bubble.

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 7 August 2018 (Case R 2653/2017-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 August 2018 (Case R 2653/2017-4);

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

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/46

---

Order of the General Court of 17 May 2019 — Martini-Sportswear v EUIPO — Olympique de Marseille (M)

(Case T-237/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark M - Withdrawal of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 230/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Martini-Sportswear GmbH (Annaberg, Austria) (represented by: W. Lang, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Olympique de Marseille SASP (Marseille, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2018 (Case R 1755/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Olympique de Marseille and Martini-Sportswear.

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. | Martini-Sportswear GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Martini-Sportswear GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/47

---

Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — ABLV Bank v ECB

(Case T-281/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Parent company and subsidiary - Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Preparatory measures - Acts not open to judicial review - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 230/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: G. Marafioti and E. Koupepidou, acting as Agents, and J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the European Central Bank’s decisions of 23 February 2018 by which the latter declared that the applicant and its subsidiary, ABLV Bank Luxembourg SA, were failing or were likely to fail within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | ABLV Bank AS shall bear its own costs and pay those of the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

ABLV Bank AS shall bear its own costs and pay those of the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/48

---

Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Bernis and Others v ECB

(Case T-283/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Parent company and subsidiary - Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Preparatory measures - Acts not open to judicial review - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 230/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ernests Bernis (Jurmala, Latvia), Oļegs Fiļs (Jurmala), OF Holding SIA (Riga, Latvia), Cassandra Holding Company SIA (Jurmala) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: G. Marafioti and E. Koupepidou, acting as Agents, and J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the European Central Bank’s decisions of 23 February 2018 by which the latter declared that ABLV Bank AS and its subsidiary, ABLV Bank Luxembourg SA, were failing or were likely to fail within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Ernests Bernis, Mr Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA and Cassandra Holding Company SIA shall bear their own costs and pay those of the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Ernests Bernis, Mr Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA and Cassandra Holding Company SIA shall bear their own costs and pay those of the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/49

---

Order of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-330/18) (1)

(Action for annulment and damages - Environment - Greenhouse gas emissions - 2030 climate and energy package - Directive (EU) 2018/410 - Regulation (EU) 2018/842 - Regulation (EU) 2018/841 - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 230/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Armando Carvalho (Santa Comba Dão, Portugal) and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: G. Winter, Professor, R. Verheyen, lawyer, and H. Leith, Barrister)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking, first, annulment in part of Directive (EU) 2018/410 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2018 amending Directive 2003/87/EC to enhance cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments, and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 (OJ 2018 L 76, p. 3), in particular Article 1 thereof, Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 (OJ 2018 L 156, p. 26), in particular Article 4(2) thereof and Annex I thereto, and Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry in the 2030 climate and energy framework, and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 and Decision No 529/2013/EU (OJ 2018 L 156, p. 1), in particular Article 4 thereof, and, second, compensation under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU in the form of an injunction for the damage that the applicants claim to have suffered.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Climate Action Network Europe, WeMove Europe SCE mbH, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bäuerliche Landwirtschaft and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Climate Action Network Europe, WeMove Europe SCE mbH, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bäuerliche Landwirtschaft and the European Commission.

| 3. | Mr Armando Carvalho and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Armando Carvalho and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

| 4. | Climate Action Network Europe, WeMove Europe, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bäuerliche Landwirtschaft and the Commission are to bear their own costs in relation to their applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Climate Action Network Europe, WeMove Europe, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bäuerliche Landwirtschaft and the Commission are to bear their own costs in relation to their applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/50

---

Order of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — ITSA v Commission

(Case T-396/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Approximation of laws - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products and related product - Establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products - Delegated Regulation and implementing acts - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 230/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) (Sunbury-on-Thames, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Scanvic, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rubene and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/573 of 15 December 2017 on key elements of data storage contracts to be concluded as part of a traceability system for tobacco products (OJ 2018 L 96, p.1), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/574 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for the establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products (OJ 2018 L 96, p.7), and Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/576 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for security features applied to tobacco products (OJ 2018 L 96, p 57).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The Council shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/50

---

Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — RATP v Commission

(Case T-422/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure initiated by the Commission against a Member State - Documents originating from the applicant - Third party access request - Initial decision to grant partial access - Lack of purpose - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 230/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP) (Paris, France) (represented initially by: E. Morgan de Rivery, P. Delelis and C. Lavin, and subsequently by P. Delelis and C. Lavin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, W. Mölls and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport of 5 March 2018 on a request for access to documents originating from the RATP in so far as it grants partial access to those documents.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP) is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP) is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/51

---

Order of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Getsmarter Online v EUIPO (getsmarter)

(Case T-473/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark getsmarter - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2019/C 230/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Getsmarter Online Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Silcock, Barrister)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 (Case R 2632/2017-1), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign getsmarter as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Getsmarter Online Ltd shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Getsmarter Online Ltd shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/52

---

Order of the General Court of 10 May 2019 — Zott v EUIPO — TSC Food Products (Ready-to-eat rectangular cake)

(Case T-517/18) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Community design representing a ready-to-eat rectangular cake - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - No different overall impression - Designer’s degree of freedom - Informed user - Article 4(1), Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2019/C 230/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Zott SE & Co. KG (Mertingen, Germany) (represented by: E. Schalast, R. Lange and C. Böhler, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: TSC Food Products GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: M. Gaderer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2018 (Case R 1341/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between TSC Food Products and Zott.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Zott SE & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Zott SE & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/53

---

Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Ayuntamiento de Enguera v Commission

(Case T-602/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Grant agreement concluded under the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) - Reduction of the amount of the grant - Reclassification of the action - Refusal of the applicant - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 230/66)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Enguera (Enguera, Spain) (represented by: J. Palau Navarro, J. Ortiz Ballester and V. Soriano i Piqueras, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s letter of 26 July 2018 confirming its position on the reduction of the amount of the grant awarded under grant agreement LIFE10 ENV/ES/000458 and giving notice of the issue of a recovery order for the sum of EUR 113 408,05.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Ayuntamiento de Enguera shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ayuntamiento de Enguera shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/53

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Sumitomo Chemical and Tenka Best v Commission

(Case T-734/18 R)

(Interim measures - Biocidal products - Active substance empenthrin - Non-approval - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2019/C 230/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc (London, United Kingdom), Tenka Best, SL (Aiguafreda, Spain) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, lawyer, and V. McElwee, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and R. Lindenthal, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck and P. Cottin, acting as Agents, and by A. Poppe and E. Jacubowitz, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1251 of 18 September 2018 not approving empenthrin as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 18 (OJ 2018 L 235, p. 24).

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.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/54

---

Action brought on 10 April 2019 — Uzina Metalurgica Moldoveneasca/Commission

(Case T-245/19)

(2019/C 230/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Uzina Metalurgica Moldoveneasca OAO (Rîbnița, Moldova) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and E. Gergondet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the action admissible;

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019, (1) as far as it applies to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019, (1) as far as it applies to the applicant; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/159 is based on a manifest error of assessment and would have violated the principles of equality and non-discrimination by applying definitive safeguard measures to imports originating in Moldova, whereas comparable imports originating in countries that are members of the European Economic Area would have been excluded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/159 is based on a manifest error of assessment and would have violated the principles of equality and non-discrimination by applying definitive safeguard measures to imports originating in Moldova, whereas comparable imports originating in countries that are members of the European Economic Area would have been excluded.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/159 violates Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 (2) by applying definitive safeguard measures to imports originating in Moldova, even though imports from developing countries, such as Moldova, should have been excluded from the application of such measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/159 violates Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 (2) by applying definitive safeguard measures to imports originating in Moldova, even though imports from developing countries, such as Moldova, should have been excluded from the application of such measures.

| 3. | Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that the defendant violated the principles of sound administration and legitimate expectation, would have committed a manifest error of assessment and would have violated Article 16 of Regulation 2015/478 by failing to assess whether the conditions for imposing safeguard measures would have been met for each product category forming the product concerned separately. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that the defendant violated the principles of sound administration and legitimate expectation, would have committed a manifest error of assessment and would have violated Article 16 of Regulation 2015/478 by failing to assess whether the conditions for imposing safeguard measures would have been met for each product category forming the product concerned separately.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment, would have breached its duty of care and would have violated Articles 9(1)(a) and 16 of Regulation 2015/478 by considering that the increase in imports of the product in the European Union would have justified the imposition of safeguard measures. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment, would have breached its duty of care and would have violated Articles 9(1)(a) and 16 of Regulation 2015/478 by considering that the increase in imports of the product in the European Union would have justified the imposition of safeguard measures.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant, when it established the existence of a threat of serious injury, committed a manifest error of assessment, would have violated the principle of sound administration, would have breached its duty of care and would have acted contrary to Articles 5(2), 9(2) and 16 of Regulation 2015/478. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant, when it established the existence of a threat of serious injury, committed a manifest error of assessment, would have violated the principle of sound administration, would have breached its duty of care and would have acted contrary to Articles 5(2), 9(2) and 16 of Regulation 2015/478.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and would have violated Article 16 of Regulation 2015/478 as it would have not established that the increase in imports was such as to threaten to cause serious injury to the European Union industry and would have not considered other factors likely to justify the alleged threat of serious injury. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and would have violated Article 16 of Regulation 2015/478 as it would have not established that the increase in imports was such as to threaten to cause serious injury to the European Union industry and would have not considered other factors likely to justify the alleged threat of serious injury.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/159 violates Article 16 of Regulation 2015/478 as the defendant would have lacked competence and would have acted in breach of Article 5(1) of Regulation 2015/478 when it would have initiated an investigation ex officio that would have led to the adoption of the Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/159. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/159 violates Article 16 of Regulation 2015/478 as the defendant would have lacked competence and would have acted in breach of Article 5(1) of Regulation 2015/478 when it would have initiated an investigation ex officio that would have led to the adoption of the Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/159.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the right to a fair hearing of the applicant by failing to disclose essential information regarding the evolution of imports and the injury situation of the European Union industry. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the right to a fair hearing of the applicant by failing to disclose essential information regarding the evolution of imports and the injury situation of the European Union industry.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019 imposing definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products (OJ L 31, 1.2.2019, p. 27).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on common rules for imports (OJ L 83, 27.3.2015, p. 16).

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/55

---

Action brought on 20 April 2019 — gastivo portal v EUIPO — La Fourchette (Representation of a fork on a green background)

(Case T-266/19)

(2019/C 230/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: gastivo portal GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, N. Willich and N. Achilles, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Fourchette SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of a fork on a green background) — Application for registration No 15 474 356

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2019 in Case R 1213/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

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 Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/56

---

Action brought on 20 April 2019 — gastivo portal v EUIPO — La Fourchette (Representation of a fork on a green background)

(Case T-267/19)

(2019/C 230/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: gastivo portal GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, N. Willich and N. Achilles, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Fourchette SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of a fork on a green background) — Application for registration No 15 474 356

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2019 in Case R 1211/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

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 Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/57

---

Action brought on 4 May 2019 — Vanhoudt and Others v EIB

(Case T-294/19)

(2019/C 230/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) and nine other applicants (represented by: A. Haines, Barrister)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the EIB’s decision of 31 January 2019 refusing to compensate the applicants for their uncompensated losses and refusing to share the SPAC simulation tool and its results; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the EIB’s decision of 31 January 2019 refusing to compensate the applicants for their uncompensated losses and refusing to share the SPAC simulation tool and its results;

| — | further, or in the alternative, order the EIB to compensate the applicants for the non-material damage flowing from and caused by the EIB’s decision to withhold the SPAC simulation tool and/or its results; |
| --- | --- |

—

further, or in the alternative, order the EIB to compensate the applicants for the non-material damage flowing from and caused by the EIB’s decision to withhold the SPAC simulation tool and/or its results;

| — | order the EIB to disclose the SPAC actuarial simulation tool and its results in the form of print-outs of the actuarial simulations in order that the applicants can evaluate their uncompensated loss, and thus, the adequacy — or lack thereof — of the compensatory measures provided to them by the EIB following reforms to their pension and remuneration; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to disclose the SPAC actuarial simulation tool and its results in the form of print-outs of the actuarial simulations in order that the applicants can evaluate their uncompensated loss, and thus, the adequacy — or lack thereof — of the compensatory measures provided to them by the EIB following reforms to their pension and remuneration;

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

—

order the EIB to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law, in so far as their application for annulment is concerned, and on the other grounds indicated below in relation to their request that the Court order production of the said simulation tool and its results.

| 1. | First plea in law, regarding the annulment claim, alleging breach of the paragraphs 9, 10 and 14 to 18 of the Memorandum of Understanding and the accompanying side letter entered into by the EIB and its staff representatives on 18 May 2009. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, regarding the annulment claim, alleging breach of the paragraphs 9, 10 and 14 to 18 of the Memorandum of Understanding and the accompanying side letter entered into by the EIB and its staff representatives on 18 May 2009.

| 2. | Second plea in law, regarding the annulment claim, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, regarding the annulment claim, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.

| 3. | Third plea in law, regarding the annulment claim, alleging breach of the right to an effective remedy, good administration and transparency. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, regarding the annulment claim, alleging breach of the right to an effective remedy, good administration and transparency.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, regarding the annulment claim, alleging breach of access to personal data. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, regarding the annulment claim, alleging breach of access to personal data.

In relation to the claim for production of the said simulation tool and its results, the applicants argue, further, as follows.

| — | The EIB’s failure to disclose the SPAC actuarial simulation tool is in breach of Articles 41, 42 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 15(1) and 15(3) of the TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

The EIB’s failure to disclose the SPAC actuarial simulation tool is in breach of Articles 41, 42 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 15(1) and 15(3) of the TFEU;

| — | The EIB is infringing the applicants’ rights of access to personal data in breach of Articles 14 and 17 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

The EIB is infringing the applicants’ rights of access to personal data in breach of Articles 14 and 17 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/58

---

Action brought on 9 May 2019 — VG v Commission

(Case T-299/19)

(2019/C 230/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VG (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 6 March 2019 taken with a view to complying with the judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 in Joined Cases T-314/16 and T-435/16, VG v Commission in so far as it refuses the transfer of certain personal data to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 6 March 2019 taken with a view to complying with the judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 in Joined Cases T-314/16 and T-435/16, VG v Commission in so far as it refuses the transfer of certain personal data to the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and a failure to take account of the force of res judicata attaching to the judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018, VG v Commission (T-314/16 and T-435/16, EU:T:2018:841).

The applicant further requests compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the refusal set out in the decision of 6 March 2019.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/59

---

Action brought on 14 May 2019 — Welmax + v EUIPO — Valmex Medical Imaging (welmax)

(Case T-305/19)

(2019/C 230/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Welmax + sp. z o.o. sp. k. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: M. Machyński, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valmex Medical Imaging GmbH (Augsburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘welmax’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 342 786

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2019 in Case R 2245/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety and give judgment on the substance of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety and give judgment on the substance of the case;

| — | issue judgment by default in the cases provided for by law; |
| --- | --- |

—

issue judgment by default in the cases provided for by law;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Court, including the costs incurred in respect of legal representation in accordance with the rules laid down by law. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Court, including the costs incurred in respect of legal representation in accordance with the rules laid down by law.

Pleas in law

| — | Error of assessment with regard to the facts upon which the decision was based, which consisted in accepting that the decision which, in accordance with the legal provisions, could be the subject of an appeal, was effectively notified to the applicant on 20 July 2018 (allegedly by courier service), whereas the contents of that decision were notified to the applicant on 21 September 2018, after prior correspondence by email and a request to that effect had been submitted by the applicant to an agent of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

Error of assessment with regard to the facts upon which the decision was based, which consisted in accepting that the decision which, in accordance with the legal provisions, could be the subject of an appeal, was effectively notified to the applicant on 20 July 2018 (allegedly by courier service), whereas the contents of that decision were notified to the applicant on 21 September 2018, after prior correspondence by email and a request to that effect had been submitted by the applicant to an agent of EUIPO;

| — | Infringement of Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council read in conjunction with Article 23(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council read in conjunction with Article 23(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/60

---

Action brought on 20 May 2019 — SQlab v EUIPO (Innerbarend)

(Case T-307/19)

(2019/C 230/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SQlab GmbH (Taufkirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Koelle, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Innerbarend — Application for registration No 15 442 635

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2019 in Case R 2180/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | amend the contested decision to the effect that the action is well founded and the EU trade mark ‘Innerbarend’ is to be registered in Class 12; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision to the effect that the action is well founded and the EU trade mark ‘Innerbarend’ is to be registered in Class 12;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas 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;

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

—

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

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/61

---

Action brought on 17 May 2019 — BU v Commission

(Case T-308/19)

(2019/C 230/75)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: BU (represented by: E. Bonanni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 11 January 2019 by which the Commission decided to create a new medical committee to give a new opinion on the requested recognition of aggravation of the applicant’s occupational disease; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 11 January 2019 by which the Commission decided to create a new medical committee to give a new opinion on the requested recognition of aggravation of the applicant’s occupational disease;

| — | order that the decision on the requested recognition of aggravation must be taken on the basis of the opinion already expressed by the previous medical committee on 8 January 2014, derogating from Article 12 of the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, in force prior to 1 January 2006 (‘the Rules’), as recognised by amended mandate of 11 January 2019, for the purposes of ordering the Commission to pay EUR 639 4[2]1.37 (of which EUR 98 372,51 has already been paid) on the basis of the allowance provided for in Article 14 of the Rules, or the provision establishing an identical or similar obligation; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the decision on the requested recognition of aggravation must be taken on the basis of the opinion already expressed by the previous medical committee on 8 January 2014, derogating from Article 12 of the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, in force prior to 1 January 2006 (‘the Rules’), as recognised by amended mandate of 11 January 2019, for the purposes of ordering the Commission to pay EUR 639 4[2]1.37 (of which EUR 98 372,51 has already been paid) on the basis of the allowance provided for in Article 14 of the Rules, or the provision establishing an identical or similar obligation;

| — | order the Commission to pay EUR 5 000 for each month of delay in adopting the measure; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay EUR 5 000 for each month of delay in adopting the measure;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 100 000 for unlawfully issuing Mandate No 3 of 25 January 2018, contrary to the judgments in Cases T-551/16 and T-212/01; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 100 000 for unlawfully issuing Mandate No 3 of 25 January 2018, contrary to the judgments in Cases T-551/16 and T-212/01;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 50 000 for disapplication of the fee scale for doctors who have been or will be appointed; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 50 000 for disapplication of the fee scale for doctors who have been or will be appointed;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 100 000 for the unjustifiable delay in completing the administrative stage of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 100 000 for the unjustifiable delay in completing the administrative stage of the proceedings;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 1 000 000 for the disgraceful behaviour of Dr AB, a non-independent direct employee of the appointing authority, in relation to his questionable conduct as described in the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 1 000 000 for the disgraceful behaviour of Dr AB, a non-independent direct employee of the appointing authority, in relation to his questionable conduct as described in the application;

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

—

lastly, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims, in essence, that the Commission should be reproached for not having taken the decision to pay him the amount of EUR 639 421,37 (of which EUR 98 372,51 has already been paid) which constitutes the allowance provided for under Article 14 of the Rules, following the opinion of the medical committee of 8 January 2014 in connection with his request of 7 June 2000 for recognition of aggravation of his occupational disease.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and of the obligation to comply with final judgments, in so far as the Commission did not comply with the judgments in Cases T-212/01 and T-551/16 with respect to the erroneous confusion of invalidity per se with the allowance provided for in Article 14 of the Rules. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and of the obligation to comply with final judgments, in so far as the Commission did not comply with the judgments in Cases T-212/01 and T-551/16 with respect to the erroneous confusion of invalidity per se with the allowance provided for in Article 14 of the Rules.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers in the present case.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of the case-law of the European Union regarding the proceedings of the medical committee. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of the case-law of the European Union regarding the proceedings of the medical committee.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that the duration of proceedings must be reasonable. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that the duration of proceedings must be reasonable.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/63

---

Action brought on 21 May 2019 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — Golden Frog (CHAMELEON)

(Case T-312/19)

(2019/C 230/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG (Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Golden Frog GmbH (Meggen, Suisse)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CHAMELEON — Application for registration No 12 567 269

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2019 in Case R 1551/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG;

| — | order Golden Frog GmbH to bear its own costs in case of an intervention. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Golden Frog GmbH to bear its own costs in case of an intervention.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | 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.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/64

---

Action brought on 22 May 2019 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v Commission

(Case T-314/19)

(2019/C 230/77)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain) (represented by: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Ríus Coma, lawyers).

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Declare the application, and the pleas in law contained therein, admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application, and the pleas in law contained therein, admissible;

| — | Uphold the pleas in law put raised in the application and, accordingly:






  a) | Declare that the termination of the BreadGuard project is unfounded and, consequently, bring the inter partes procedure in question to a close. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Uphold the pleas in law put raised in the application and, accordingly:

a)

Declare that the termination of the BreadGuard project is unfounded and, consequently, bring the inter partes procedure in question to a close.

| b) | In the alternative, order the Commission to pay the amounts corresponding to the works actually carried out by TECNALIA and to cease requesting recovery of the amounts of aid granted in respect of the BreadGuard project that were received by TECNALIA for the implementation of the project. |
| --- | --- |

b)

In the alternative, order the Commission to pay the amounts corresponding to the works actually carried out by TECNALIA and to cease requesting recovery of the amounts of aid granted in respect of the BreadGuard project that were received by TECNALIA for the implementation of the project.

| c) | In the further alternative, annul the decision to terminate and order the reopening of the inter partes procedure until the shortcomings observed and reported by TECNALIA in the terms set out in the application are remedied. |
| --- | --- |

c)

In the further alternative, annul the decision to terminate and order the reopening of the inter partes procedure until the shortcomings observed and reported by TECNALIA in the terms set out in the application are remedied.

| d) | In any event, declare that no finding of grave professional misconduct on the part of TECNALIA is to be made. |
| --- | --- |

d)

In any event, declare that no finding of grave professional misconduct on the part of TECNALIA is to be made.

| — | Order the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the closure of the inter partes procedure in respect of the project FP7-KBBE-2013-613647 BREADGUARD grant agreement, which was the subject of the request for redress dismissed by notice of 22 March 2019.

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging that TECNALIA did not infringe the grant agreement






  — | In that regard, the applicant submits that the grant agreement was wrongfully applied, in that it imputes the infringement of Articles II.38(1)(b), II.38(1)(c), II.38(1)(f) and II.38(1)(l) thereof, given that TECNALIA evidently did not infringe the grant agreement’s content in respect of each and every one of the irregularities and infringements imputed in the decision to terminate. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging that TECNALIA did not infringe the grant agreement

—

In that regard, the applicant submits that the grant agreement was wrongfully applied, in that it imputes the infringement of Articles II.38(1)(b), II.38(1)(c), II.38(1)(f) and II.38(1)(l) thereof, given that TECNALIA evidently did not infringe the grant agreement’s content in respect of each and every one of the irregularities and infringements imputed in the decision to terminate.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging that Article II.38 of the grant agreement was wrongfully applied.






  — | In that regard, the applicant claims that Article II.38(1)(l) of the grant agreement was wrongfully applied in view of the finding of grave professional misconduct on the part of TECNALIA. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging that Article II.38 of the grant agreement was wrongfully applied.

—

In that regard, the applicant claims that Article II.38(1)(l) of the grant agreement was wrongfully applied in view of the finding of grave professional misconduct on the part of TECNALIA.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging that Article II.38(1)(l) of Annex II to the grant agreement was wrongfully applied






  — | In that regard, the applicant submits that Article II.38 of the grant agreement was wrongfully applied in order to terminate the BreadGuard project by holding the Consortium accountable as a whole. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging that Article II.38(1)(l) of Annex II to the grant agreement was wrongfully applied

—

In that regard, the applicant submits that Article II.38 of the grant agreement was wrongfully applied in order to terminate the BreadGuard project by holding the Consortium accountable as a whole.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article II.23(5) of Annex II to the grant agreement






  — | In that regard, the applicant alleges infringement of the content of Annex II to the BreadGuard grant agreement, on account of the European Commission’s failure to disclose the identity of the independent experts who endorsed the expert reports on which the contested decision was founded, thereby preventing TECNALIA from challenging those reports. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article II.23(5) of Annex II to the grant agreement

—

In that regard, the applicant alleges infringement of the content of Annex II to the BreadGuard grant agreement, on account of the European Commission’s failure to disclose the identity of the independent experts who endorsed the expert reports on which the contested decision was founded, thereby preventing TECNALIA from challenging those reports.

| 5. | Fifth plea, alleging that the acknowledgement of the findings by one of the beneficiaries is irrelevant






  — | In that regard, the applicant submits that the University of Kassel’s findings regarding the inter partes procedure in its capacity as one of the beneficiaries of the BreadGuard and FoodWatch projects are irrelevant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea, alleging that the acknowledgement of the findings by one of the beneficiaries is irrelevant

—

In that regard, the applicant submits that the University of Kassel’s findings regarding the inter partes procedure in its capacity as one of the beneficiaries of the BreadGuard and FoodWatch projects are irrelevant.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/65

---

Order of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission

(Case T-419/18) (1)

(2019/C 230/78)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/66

---

Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Apera Capital Master v EUIPO — Altera Capital (APERA CAPITAL)

(Case T-699/18) (1)

(2019/C 230/79)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

---

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/66

---

Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Bacardi v EUIPO — La Fée (ANGEL’S ENVY)

(Case T-115/19) (1)

(2019/C 230/80)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---