# Official Journal C 16/14 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 16 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6214 January 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 16

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6214 January 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2019/C 16/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2019/C 16/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2019/C 16/02 | Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Stadt Wuppertal v Maria Elisabeth Bauer (C-569/16), Volker Willmeroth, in his capacity as owner of TWI Technische Wartung und Instandsetzung Volker Willmeroth e.K. v Martina Broßonn (C-570/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — Employment relationship terminated by the death of the worker — National legislation preventing the payment of an allowance to the legal heirs of a worker in lieu of paid annual leave not taken by him — Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 31(2) — Whether it may be relied upon in a dispute between individuals) | 2 |
| 2019/C 16/03 | Case C-619/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Sebastian W. Kreuziger v Land Berlin (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — National legislation providing for the loss of annual leave not taken and of the payment in lieu thereof, where the worker did not submit a request for leave before the termination of the employment relationship) | 3 |
| 2019/C 16/04 | Joined Cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl v European Commission, Italian Republic (C-622/16 P), European Commission v Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl, Italian Republic (C-623/16 P), European Commission v Pietro Ferracci, Italian Republic (C-624/16 P) (Appeal — State aid — Decision declaring the recovery of State aid incompatible with the internal market to be impossible — Decision finding that there is no State aid — Actions for annulment brought by competitors of beneficiaries of State aid — Admissibility — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Direct concern — Concept of absolute impossibility of recovery of State aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Concepts of undertaking and economic activity) | 4 |
| 2019/C 16/05 | Case C-684/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. v Tetsuji Shimizu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — National legislation providing for the loss of annual leave not taken and of the allowance in lieu thereof where an application for leave has not been made by the worker prior to the termination of the employment relationship — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 31(2) — Whether it may be relied upon in a dispute between individuals) | 5 |
| 2019/C 16/06 | Case C-18/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche SpA and Others v Regionale Geschäftsstelle Leoben des Arbeitsmarktservice (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Accession of new Member States — Republic of Croatia — Transitional measures — Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Posting of Croatian and third-country nationals to Austria through the intermediary of an undertaking established in Italy) | 6 |
| 2019/C 16/07 | Case C-33/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bleiburg/Okrajno Sodišče Pliberk — Austria) — Čepelnik d.o.o. v Michael Vavti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Services in the internal market — Directive 2006/123/EC — Labour law — Posting of workers in order to carry out construction works — Reporting of workers — Retention and translation of payslips — Suspension of payments — Payment of a security by the recipient of the services — Surety for a possible fine to be imposed on the service provider) | 7 |
| 2019/C 16/08 | Joined Cases C-47/17 and C-48/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — X (C-47/17), X (C-48/17) v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Criteria and mechanisms for determination — Request to take charge of or take back an asylum seeker — Negative reply from the requested Member State — Re-examination request — Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1560/2003 — Time limit for replying — Expiry — Effects) | 7 |
| 2019/C 16/09 | Case C-93/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Recovery requirement — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil its obligations — Undertaking which engages in both civil and military activities — Non-implementation — Essential interests of the security of a Member State — Article 346(1)(b) TFEU — Financial penalties — Periodic penalty payment — Lump sum — Ability to pay — N Factor — Factors which are the basis for the assessment of the ability to pay — Gross domestic product — Weighting of votes of the Member State in the Council of the European Union — New voting rules in the Council) | 8 |
| 2019/C 16/10 | Case C-171/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 November 2018 — Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/123/EC — Articles 15 to 17 — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — National mobile payment system — Monopoly) | 9 |
| 2019/C 16/11 | Case C-215/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor d.d. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Re-use of public sector information — Directive 2003/98/EC — Article 1(2)(c), third indent — Prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms — Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Information to be published by credit institutions and investment firms — Article 432(2) — Exceptions to public disclosure requirements — Information considered commercially sensitive or confidential — Applicability — Credit institutions predominantly owned by the State — National legislation laying down the public nature of certain commercial information held by those institutions) | 10 |
| 2019/C 16/12 | Case C-238/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas — Lithuania) — UAB Renerga v AB Energijos skirstymo operatorius, AB Lietuvos energijos gamyba (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 3(2), (6) and (15) and Article 36(f) — Internal market in electricity — Hypothetical nature of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling) | 10 |
| 2019/C 16/13 | Case C-247/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — proceedings relating to the extradition of Denis Raugevicius (Reference for a preliminary ruling — European Union Citizenship — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Request to a Member State by a third country seeking extradition of an EU citizen who is a national of another Member State and who has exercised his right to free movement in the first Member State — Request made for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence and not for the purpose of prosecution — Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals — Restriction on free movement — Justification based on the prevention of impunity — Proportionality) | 11 |
| 2019/C 16/14 | Case C-257/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — C, A v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Directive 2003/86/EC — Right to family reunification — Article 15 — Refusal to grant an autonomous residence permit — National legislation providing for a requirement to pass a civic integration examination) | 12 |
| 2019/C 16/15 | Joined Cases C-293/17 and C-294/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA, Vereniging Leefmilieu v College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg, College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland (C-293/17), Stichting Werkgroep Behoud de Peel v College van gedeputeerde staten van Noord-Brabant (C-294/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Special areas of conservation — Article 6 — Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a site — National programmatic approach to tackling nitrogen deposition — Concepts of project and appropriate assessment — Overall assessment prior to individual authorisations for farms which cause nitrogen deposition) | 13 |
| 2019/C 16/16 | Case C-296/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad — Bulgaria) — Wiemer & Trachte GmbH, in liquidation v Zhan Oved Tadzher (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 3(1) — International jurisdiction — Action to set a transaction aside — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened) | 14 |
| 2019/C 16/17 | Case C-308/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Hellenische Republik v Leo Kuhn (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Scope — Article 1(1) — Concept of civil and commercial matters — Bonds issued by a Member State — Involvement of the private sector in the restructuring of public debt of that State — Unilateral and retroactive adjustment of the borrowing terms — Collective action clauses — Action brought against the State by private creditors who hold those bonds as natural persons — Liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority) | 15 |
| 2019/C 16/18 | Case C-310/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Scope — Article 2 — Reproduction rights — Concept of work — Taste of a food product) | 16 |
| 2019/C 16/19 | Case C-330/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg eV v Germanwings GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 — Article 2(18) — Article 23(1) — Transport — Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union — Information — Indication of the final price to be paid — Inclusion of the air fare in the final price to be paid — Obligation to indicate air fares in euros or local currency — Choice of the relevant local currency — Connecting factors) | 16 |
| 2019/C 16/20 | Case C-334/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 — Republic of Estonia v European Commission, Republic of Latvia (Appeal — Common organisation of the markets — Amount to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated — Decision 2006/776/EC — Request for modification of a final decision of the European Commission — Letter of refusal — Appeal against that letter — Admissibility) | 17 |
| 2019/C 16/21 | Case C-342/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto — Italy) — Memoria Srl, Antonia Dall’Antonia v Comune di Padova (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Restrictions on freedom of establishment — Jurisdiction of the Court — Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling — Purely domestic situation — National legislation prohibiting any profit-making activity relating to the safekeeping of cinerary urns — Proportionality test — Coherence of national rules) | 18 |
| 2019/C 16/22 | Case C-380/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K, B v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Directive 2003/86/EC — Right to family reunification — Article 12 — Failure to comply with the time limit of three months following the grant of international protection — Beneficiary of subsidiary protection status — Rejection of an application for a visa) | 18 |
| 2019/C 16/23 | Case C-432/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Dermod Patrick O’Brien v Ministry of Justice, formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Part-time workers — Retirement pension — Calculation of the amount of the pension — Account taken of years of service completed before expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 97/81/EC — Immediate application to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old law) | 19 |
| 2019/C 16/24 | Case C-457/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Heiko Jonny Maniero v Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin — Directive 2000/43/EC — Article 3(1)(g) — Scope — Concept of education — The award by a private foundation of scholarships aimed at promoting projects for legal research and studies abroad — Article 2(2)(b) — Indirect discrimination — Award of scholarships conditional on applicants having first passed the First State Law Examination (Erste Juristische Staatsprüfung)) | 20 |
| 2019/C 16/25 | Case C-461/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Brian Holohan and Others v An Bord Pleanála (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Conservation of wild fauna and flora — Road construction project — Appropriate assessment of effects on the environment — Extent of the obligation to state reasons — Directive 2011/92/EU — Assessment of the implications of certain projects — Annex IV, Point 3 — Article 5(3)(d) — Meaning of the concept of main alternatives) | 21 |
| 2019/C 16/26 | Case C-484/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/86/EC — Right to family reunification — Article 15 — Refusal to grant an autonomous residence permit — National legislation providing for a requirement to pass a civic integration examination) | 22 |
| 2019/C 16/27 | Case C-495/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova — Romania) — Cartrans Spedition Srl v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Prahova, Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 146(1)(e) and Article 153 — Road transport transactions directly connected with the export of goods — Supply of services by intermediaries taking part in such transactions — Rules on proof of export of goods — Customs declaration — TIR carnet) | 22 |
| 2019/C 16/28 | Case C-502/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — C&D Foods Acquisition ApS v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Proposed sale of shares in a sub-subsidiary — Expenditure associated with the provision of services acquired for the purposes of that sale — Sale not carried out — Request for a deduction of input tax — Scope of VAT) | 23 |
| 2019/C 16/29 | Case C-544/17 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 — BPC Lux 2 Sàrl v European Commission, Portuguese Republic (Appeal — State aid — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo SA — Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank — Decision of the European Commission declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action before the national courts seeking annulment of the decision to put Banco Espírito Santo into resolution) | 24 |
| 2019/C 16/30 | Case C-592/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Headings and subheadings 4421, 7326, 7318 15 90, 7318 19 00 and 9403 90 10 — Article specially designed to mount child safety gates — Dumping — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China — World Trade Organisation (WTO) Anti-Dumping Agreement — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 3(2) and Article 4(1) — Definition of Community industry) | 24 |
| 2019/C 16/31 | Case C-648/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — BTA Baltic Insurance Company AS, formerly Balcia Insurance SE v Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams AS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Concept of use of vehicles — Accident involving two vehicles parked in a car park — Material damage to a vehicle caused by a passenger from a neighbouring vehicle opening the vehicle door) | 25 |
| 2019/C 16/32 | Case C-426/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Beneficiary of legal aid — Remuneration of legal aid lawyers — Fee scale set by order of the Bar Council — No prior information on fees provided by the lawyer to her client — Complaint as to fees — Examination as to whether terms and practices are unfair — Main dispute — Referral to a competent body — No referral to the referring court — Answers to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Utility — None — Manifest inadmissibility) | 26 |
| 2019/C 16/33 | Case C-300/18 P: Appeal brought on 3 May 2018 by UF against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-422/17 UF v European Parliament and Council of the European Union | 26 |
| 2019/C 16/34 | Case C-534/18 P: Appeal brought on 15 August 2018 by Xabier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 29 May 2018 in Case T-577/15, Xabier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez v EUIPO — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, S.L. | 27 |
| 2019/C 16/35 | Case C-551/18 PPU: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 29 August 2018 — IK | 28 |
| 2019/C 16/36 | Case C-568/18 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2018 by Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2018 in Case T-643/13, Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH v European Commission | 29 |
| 2019/C 16/37 | Case C-656/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2018 — F. v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV | 30 |
| 2019/C 16/38 | Case C-676/18: Action brought on 30 October 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium | 30 |
| 2019/C 16/39 | Case C-685/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 7 November 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v ND | 31 |
| 2019/C 16/40 | Case C-288/17: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des fabricants de cigares, Coprova, E-Labo France, Smakq développement v Premier ministre, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, interveners: Société J. Cortès France, Scandinavian Tobacco Group France, Villiger France | 32 |
| 2019/C 16/41 | Case C-299/18: Order of the President of the Court of 22 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Stefan Neldner v Eurowings GmbH | 32 |
| | General Court |
| 2019/C 16/42 | Case T-316/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — PKK v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures imposed on the PKK with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Powers of the Council — Whether an authority of a third State can be classified as a competent authority within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Reference to terrorist acts — Judicial review — Obligation to state reasons — Plea of illegality) | 33 |
| 2019/C 16/43 | Case T-793/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission (State aid — United Kingdom capacity market — Aid scheme — Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU — Concept of doubts within the meaning of Article 4(3) or (4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 — Decision not to raise any objections — No initiation of the formal investigation procedure — Procedural rights of interested parties) | 35 |
| 2019/C 16/44 | Case T-639/15 to T-666/15 and T-94/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Psara and Others v Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — European Parliament — Expenditure by Members of the Parliament of their allowances — Refusal to grant access — Non-existent documents — Personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Need to transfer the data — Specific and individual examination — Partial access — Excessive administrative burden — Obligation to state reasons) | 36 |
| 2019/C 16/45 | Case T-718/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Mad Dogg Athletics v EUIPO — Aerospinning Master Franchising (SPINNING) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark SPINNING — Partial revocation — Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 38 |
| 2019/C 16/46 | Case T-724/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Transfer of national pension rights — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of the European Union to provide assistance — Loss of interest of the applicants in bringing proceedings during the course of the proceedings — No need to adjudicate at first instance — Causation) | 39 |
| 2019/C 16/47 | Case T-827/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — QB v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Appraisal exercise — Staff report [2015] — Possibility of being accompanied by a union representative during the appraisal interview — Infringement of the guidelines on objectivity and impartiality on the part of the assessor — Remuneration — Decision refusing the benefit of a salary progression — Admissibility of evidence — Email exchanged between a member of staff and that person’s coach using a work email account — Liability) | 39 |
| 2019/C 16/48 | Case T-44/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark CAMOMILLA — Earlier national figurative mark CAMOMILLA — Rejection in part of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Evidence — Counterclaim — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 40 |
| 2019/C 16/49 | Case T-216/17: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Mabrouk v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of State funds and associated persons and entities — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Insufficient factual basis — Manifest error of assessment — Error of law — Principle of good administration — Reasonable time) | 41 |
| 2019/C 16/50 | Case T-241/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Poland v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 — Temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector following a deadly enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (E. coli) outbreak — Non-harvesting operations — Extent of the compensation in favour of producers who performed such operations — Expenditure incurred by Poland — Obligation to state reasons) | 42 |
| 2019/C 16/51 | Case T-454/17: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Pro NGO! v Commission (Public procurement — Tendering procedure — Investigation by an external auditor — OLAF investigation — Finding of irregularities — Commission decision imposing an administrative penalty on the applicant — Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures financed by the general budget of the European Union for a period of six months — Registration in the Early Detection and Exclusion System database — New plea in law — Right of defence) | 42 |
| 2019/C 16/52 | Case T-486/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Foodterapia v EUIPO — Sperlari (DIETOX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark DIETOX — Earlier EU figurative mark Dietor — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 43 |
| 2019/C 16/53 | Case T-830/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 –Szentes v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Competition notice — Open competition — Admission conditions — Professional experience — Selection board’s decision not to allow the applicant to sit the competition — Request for review — Plea of illegality — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of information in the application form — Manifest error of assessment — Breach of the notice of competition) | 44 |
| 2019/C 16/54 | Case T-140/18: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — LMP Lichttechnik v EUIPO (LITECRAFT) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark LITECRAFT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 44 |
| 2019/C 16/55 | Case T-271/10 OST: Order of the General Court of 17 September 2018 — H v Council (Procedure — Failure to adjudicate on costs) | 45 |
| 2019/C 16/56 | Case T-621/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 October 2018 — Taminco v EFSA (Application for interim measures — Plant protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Publication of the conclusion of the examination carried out by EFSA on the review of the approval of the active substance thiram — Claim for confidential treatment of certain sections — Refusal to grant confidentiality — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency) | 46 |
| 2019/C 16/57 | Case T-625/18: Action brought on 10 October 2018 — FT v ESMA | 46 |
| 2019/C 16/58 | Case T-635/18: Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Industrial Química del Nalón v Commission | 47 |
| 2019/C 16/59 | Case T-636/18: Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Tokai erftcarbon v Commission | 48 |
| 2019/C 16/60 | Case T-637/18: Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Bawtry Carbon International v Commission | 49 |
| 2019/C 16/61 | Case T-638/18: Action brought on 23 October2018 — Deza v Commission | 50 |
| 2019/C 16/62 | Case T-639/18: Action brought on 23 October 2018 — SGL Carbon v Commission | 51 |
| 2019/C 16/63 | Case T-643/18: Action brought on 29 October 2018 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes) | 52 |
| 2019/C 16/64 | Case T-645/18: Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Bilbaína de Alquitranes v Commission | 53 |
| 2019/C 16/65 | Case T-647/18: Action brought on 29 October 2018 — ZQ v Commission | 54 |
| 2019/C 16/66 | Case T-648/18: Action brought on 22 October 2018 — Super bock group, SGPS v EUIPO — Agus (Crystal) | 56 |
| 2019/C 16/67 | Case T-650/18: Action brought on 29 October 2018 — Reaktor Group v EUIPO (REAKTOR) | 56 |
| 2019/C 16/68 | Case T-665/18: Action brought on 12 November 2018 — Soundio v EUIPO — E-Plus Mobilfunk (Vibble) | 57 |
| 2019/C 16/69 | Case T-667/18: Action brought on 9 November 2018 — Pinto Teixeira v EEAS | 58 |
| 2019/C 16/70 | Case T-671/18: Action brought on 15 November 2018 — ZU v Commission | 58 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2019/C 16/02

Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Stadt Wuppertal v Maria Elisabeth Bauer (C-569/16), Volker Willmeroth, in his capacity as owner of TWI Technische Wartung und Instandsetzung Volker Willmeroth e.K. v Martina Broßonn (C-570/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — Employment relationship terminated by the death of the worker — National legislation preventing the payment of an allowance to the legal heirs of a worker in lieu of paid annual leave not taken by him — Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 31(2) — Whether it may be relied upon in a dispute between individuals)

2

2019/C 16/03

Case C-619/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Sebastian W. Kreuziger v Land Berlin (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — National legislation providing for the loss of annual leave not taken and of the payment in lieu thereof, where the worker did not submit a request for leave before the termination of the employment relationship)

3

2019/C 16/04

Joined Cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl v European Commission, Italian Republic (C-622/16 P), European Commission v Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl, Italian Republic (C-623/16 P), European Commission v Pietro Ferracci, Italian Republic (C-624/16 P) (Appeal — State aid — Decision declaring the recovery of State aid incompatible with the internal market to be impossible — Decision finding that there is no State aid — Actions for annulment brought by competitors of beneficiaries of State aid — Admissibility — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Direct concern — Concept of absolute impossibility of recovery of State aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Concepts of undertaking and economic activity)

4

2019/C 16/05

Case C-684/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. v Tetsuji Shimizu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — National legislation providing for the loss of annual leave not taken and of the allowance in lieu thereof where an application for leave has not been made by the worker prior to the termination of the employment relationship — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 31(2) — Whether it may be relied upon in a dispute between individuals)

5

2019/C 16/06

Case C-18/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche SpA and Others v Regionale Geschäftsstelle Leoben des Arbeitsmarktservice (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Accession of new Member States — Republic of Croatia — Transitional measures — Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Posting of Croatian and third-country nationals to Austria through the intermediary of an undertaking established in Italy)

6

2019/C 16/07

Case C-33/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bleiburg/Okrajno Sodišče Pliberk — Austria) — Čepelnik d.o.o. v Michael Vavti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Services in the internal market — Directive 2006/123/EC — Labour law — Posting of workers in order to carry out construction works — Reporting of workers — Retention and translation of payslips — Suspension of payments — Payment of a security by the recipient of the services — Surety for a possible fine to be imposed on the service provider)

7

2019/C 16/08

Joined Cases C-47/17 and C-48/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — X (C-47/17), X (C-48/17) v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Criteria and mechanisms for determination — Request to take charge of or take back an asylum seeker — Negative reply from the requested Member State — Re-examination request — Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1560/2003 — Time limit for replying — Expiry — Effects)

7

2019/C 16/09

Case C-93/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Recovery requirement — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil its obligations — Undertaking which engages in both civil and military activities — Non-implementation — Essential interests of the security of a Member State — Article 346(1)(b) TFEU — Financial penalties — Periodic penalty payment — Lump sum — Ability to pay — N Factor — Factors which are the basis for the assessment of the ability to pay — Gross domestic product — Weighting of votes of the Member State in the Council of the European Union — New voting rules in the Council)

8

2019/C 16/10

Case C-171/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 November 2018 — Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/123/EC — Articles 15 to 17 — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — National mobile payment system — Monopoly)

9

2019/C 16/11

Case C-215/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor d.d. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Re-use of public sector information — Directive 2003/98/EC — Article 1(2)(c), third indent — Prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms — Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Information to be published by credit institutions and investment firms — Article 432(2) — Exceptions to public disclosure requirements — Information considered commercially sensitive or confidential — Applicability — Credit institutions predominantly owned by the State — National legislation laying down the public nature of certain commercial information held by those institutions)

10

2019/C 16/12

Case C-238/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas — Lithuania) — UAB Renerga v AB Energijos skirstymo operatorius, AB Lietuvos energijos gamyba (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 3(2), (6) and (15) and Article 36(f) — Internal market in electricity — Hypothetical nature of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

10

2019/C 16/13

Case C-247/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — proceedings relating to the extradition of Denis Raugevicius (Reference for a preliminary ruling — European Union Citizenship — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Request to a Member State by a third country seeking extradition of an EU citizen who is a national of another Member State and who has exercised his right to free movement in the first Member State — Request made for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence and not for the purpose of prosecution — Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals — Restriction on free movement — Justification based on the prevention of impunity — Proportionality)

11

2019/C 16/14

Case C-257/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — C, A v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Directive 2003/86/EC — Right to family reunification — Article 15 — Refusal to grant an autonomous residence permit — National legislation providing for a requirement to pass a civic integration examination)

12

2019/C 16/15

Joined Cases C-293/17 and C-294/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA, Vereniging Leefmilieu v College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg, College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland (C-293/17), Stichting Werkgroep Behoud de Peel v College van gedeputeerde staten van Noord-Brabant (C-294/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Special areas of conservation — Article 6 — Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a site — National programmatic approach to tackling nitrogen deposition — Concepts of project and appropriate assessment — Overall assessment prior to individual authorisations for farms which cause nitrogen deposition)

13

2019/C 16/16

Case C-296/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad — Bulgaria) — Wiemer & Trachte GmbH, in liquidation v Zhan Oved Tadzher (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 3(1) — International jurisdiction — Action to set a transaction aside — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened)

14

2019/C 16/17

Case C-308/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Hellenische Republik v Leo Kuhn (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Scope — Article 1(1) — Concept of civil and commercial matters — Bonds issued by a Member State — Involvement of the private sector in the restructuring of public debt of that State — Unilateral and retroactive adjustment of the borrowing terms — Collective action clauses — Action brought against the State by private creditors who hold those bonds as natural persons — Liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority)

15

2019/C 16/18

Case C-310/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Scope — Article 2 — Reproduction rights — Concept of work — Taste of a food product)

16

2019/C 16/19

Case C-330/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg eV v Germanwings GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 — Article 2(18) — Article 23(1) — Transport — Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union — Information — Indication of the final price to be paid — Inclusion of the air fare in the final price to be paid — Obligation to indicate air fares in euros or local currency — Choice of the relevant local currency — Connecting factors)

16

2019/C 16/20

Case C-334/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 — Republic of Estonia v European Commission, Republic of Latvia (Appeal — Common organisation of the markets — Amount to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated — Decision 2006/776/EC — Request for modification of a final decision of the European Commission — Letter of refusal — Appeal against that letter — Admissibility)

17

2019/C 16/21

Case C-342/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto — Italy) — Memoria Srl, Antonia Dall’Antonia v Comune di Padova (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Restrictions on freedom of establishment — Jurisdiction of the Court — Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling — Purely domestic situation — National legislation prohibiting any profit-making activity relating to the safekeeping of cinerary urns — Proportionality test — Coherence of national rules)

18

2019/C 16/22

Case C-380/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K, B v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Directive 2003/86/EC — Right to family reunification — Article 12 — Failure to comply with the time limit of three months following the grant of international protection — Beneficiary of subsidiary protection status — Rejection of an application for a visa)

18

2019/C 16/23

Case C-432/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Dermod Patrick O’Brien v Ministry of Justice, formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Part-time workers — Retirement pension — Calculation of the amount of the pension — Account taken of years of service completed before expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 97/81/EC — Immediate application to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old law)

19

2019/C 16/24

Case C-457/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Heiko Jonny Maniero v Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin — Directive 2000/43/EC — Article 3(1)(g) — Scope — Concept of education — The award by a private foundation of scholarships aimed at promoting projects for legal research and studies abroad — Article 2(2)(b) — Indirect discrimination — Award of scholarships conditional on applicants having first passed the First State Law Examination (Erste Juristische Staatsprüfung))

20

2019/C 16/25

Case C-461/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Brian Holohan and Others v An Bord Pleanála (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Conservation of wild fauna and flora — Road construction project — Appropriate assessment of effects on the environment — Extent of the obligation to state reasons — Directive 2011/92/EU — Assessment of the implications of certain projects — Annex IV, Point 3 — Article 5(3)(d) — Meaning of the concept of main alternatives)

21

2019/C 16/26

Case C-484/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/86/EC — Right to family reunification — Article 15 — Refusal to grant an autonomous residence permit — National legislation providing for a requirement to pass a civic integration examination)

22

2019/C 16/27

Case C-495/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova — Romania) — Cartrans Spedition Srl v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Prahova, Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 146(1)(e) and Article 153 — Road transport transactions directly connected with the export of goods — Supply of services by intermediaries taking part in such transactions — Rules on proof of export of goods — Customs declaration — TIR carnet)

22

2019/C 16/28

Case C-502/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — C&D Foods Acquisition ApS v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Proposed sale of shares in a sub-subsidiary — Expenditure associated with the provision of services acquired for the purposes of that sale — Sale not carried out — Request for a deduction of input tax — Scope of VAT)

23

2019/C 16/29

Case C-544/17 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 — BPC Lux 2 Sàrl v European Commission, Portuguese Republic (Appeal — State aid — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo SA — Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank — Decision of the European Commission declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action before the national courts seeking annulment of the decision to put Banco Espírito Santo into resolution)

24

2019/C 16/30

Case C-592/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Headings and subheadings 4421, 7326, 7318 15 90, 7318 19 00 and 9403 90 10 — Article specially designed to mount child safety gates — Dumping — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China — World Trade Organisation (WTO) Anti-Dumping Agreement — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 3(2) and Article 4(1) — Definition of Community industry)

24

2019/C 16/31

Case C-648/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — BTA Baltic Insurance Company AS, formerly Balcia Insurance SE v Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams AS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Concept of use of vehicles — Accident involving two vehicles parked in a car park — Material damage to a vehicle caused by a passenger from a neighbouring vehicle opening the vehicle door)

25

2019/C 16/32

Case C-426/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Beneficiary of legal aid — Remuneration of legal aid lawyers — Fee scale set by order of the Bar Council — No prior information on fees provided by the lawyer to her client — Complaint as to fees — Examination as to whether terms and practices are unfair — Main dispute — Referral to a competent body — No referral to the referring court — Answers to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Utility — None — Manifest inadmissibility)

26

2019/C 16/33

Case C-300/18 P: Appeal brought on 3 May 2018 by UF against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-422/17 UF v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

UF

European Parliament and Council of the European Union

26

2019/C 16/34

Case C-534/18 P: Appeal brought on 15 August 2018 by Xabier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 29 May 2018 in Case T-577/15, Xabier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez v EUIPO — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, S.L.

Xabier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez

EUIPO — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, S.L.

27

2019/C 16/35

Case C-551/18 PPU: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 29 August 2018 — IK

28

2019/C 16/36

Case C-568/18 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2018 by Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2018 in Case T-643/13, Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH v European Commission

29

2019/C 16/37

Case C-656/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2018 — F. v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

30

2019/C 16/38

Case C-676/18: Action brought on 30 October 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

30

2019/C 16/39

Case C-685/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 7 November 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v ND

31

2019/C 16/40

Case C-288/17: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des fabricants de cigares, Coprova, E-Labo France, Smakq développement v Premier ministre, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, interveners: Société J. Cortès France, Scandinavian Tobacco Group France, Villiger France

32

2019/C 16/41

Case C-299/18: Order of the President of the Court of 22 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Stefan Neldner v Eurowings GmbH

32

General Court

2019/C 16/42

Case T-316/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — PKK v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures imposed on the PKK with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Powers of the Council — Whether an authority of a third State can be classified as a competent authority within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Reference to terrorist acts — Judicial review — Obligation to state reasons — Plea of illegality)

33

2019/C 16/43

Case T-793/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission (State aid — United Kingdom capacity market — Aid scheme — Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU — Concept of doubts within the meaning of Article 4(3) or (4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 — Decision not to raise any objections — No initiation of the formal investigation procedure — Procedural rights of interested parties)

35

2019/C 16/44

Case T-639/15 to T-666/15 and T-94/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Psara and Others v Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — European Parliament — Expenditure by Members of the Parliament of their allowances — Refusal to grant access — Non-existent documents — Personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Need to transfer the data — Specific and individual examination — Partial access — Excessive administrative burden — Obligation to state reasons)

36

2019/C 16/45

Case T-718/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Mad Dogg Athletics v EUIPO — Aerospinning Master Franchising (SPINNING) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark SPINNING — Partial revocation — Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

38

2019/C 16/46

Case T-724/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Transfer of national pension rights — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of the European Union to provide assistance — Loss of interest of the applicants in bringing proceedings during the course of the proceedings — No need to adjudicate at first instance — Causation)

39

2019/C 16/47

Case T-827/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — QB v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Appraisal exercise — Staff report [2015] — Possibility of being accompanied by a union representative during the appraisal interview — Infringement of the guidelines on objectivity and impartiality on the part of the assessor — Remuneration — Decision refusing the benefit of a salary progression — Admissibility of evidence — Email exchanged between a member of staff and that person’s coach using a work email account — Liability)

39

2019/C 16/48

Case T-44/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark CAMOMILLA — Earlier national figurative mark CAMOMILLA — Rejection in part of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Evidence — Counterclaim — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

40

2019/C 16/49

Case T-216/17: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Mabrouk v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of State funds and associated persons and entities — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Insufficient factual basis — Manifest error of assessment — Error of law — Principle of good administration — Reasonable time)

41

2019/C 16/50

Case T-241/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Poland v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 — Temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector following a deadly enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (E. coli) outbreak — Non-harvesting operations — Extent of the compensation in favour of producers who performed such operations — Expenditure incurred by Poland — Obligation to state reasons)

42

2019/C 16/51

Case T-454/17: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Pro NGO! v Commission (Public procurement — Tendering procedure — Investigation by an external auditor — OLAF investigation — Finding of irregularities — Commission decision imposing an administrative penalty on the applicant — Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures financed by the general budget of the European Union for a period of six months — Registration in the Early Detection and Exclusion System database — New plea in law — Right of defence)

42

2019/C 16/52

Case T-486/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Foodterapia v EUIPO — Sperlari (DIETOX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark DIETOX — Earlier EU figurative mark Dietor — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

43

2019/C 16/53

Case T-830/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 –Szentes v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Competition notice — Open competition — Admission conditions — Professional experience — Selection board’s decision not to allow the applicant to sit the competition — Request for review — Plea of illegality — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of information in the application form — Manifest error of assessment — Breach of the notice of competition)

44

2019/C 16/54

Case T-140/18: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — LMP Lichttechnik v EUIPO (LITECRAFT) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark LITECRAFT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

44

2019/C 16/55

Case T-271/10 OST: Order of the General Court of 17 September 2018 — H v Council (Procedure — Failure to adjudicate on costs)

45

2019/C 16/56

Case T-621/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 October 2018 — Taminco v EFSA (Application for interim measures — Plant protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Publication of the conclusion of the examination carried out by EFSA on the review of the approval of the active substance thiram — Claim for confidential treatment of certain sections — Refusal to grant confidentiality — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)

46

2019/C 16/57

Case T-625/18: Action brought on 10 October 2018 — FT v ESMA

46

2019/C 16/58

Case T-635/18: Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Industrial Química del Nalón v Commission

47

2019/C 16/59

Case T-636/18: Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Tokai erftcarbon v Commission

48

2019/C 16/60

Case T-637/18: Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Bawtry Carbon International v Commission

49

2019/C 16/61

Case T-638/18: Action brought on 23 October2018 — Deza v Commission

50

2019/C 16/62

Case T-639/18: Action brought on 23 October 2018 — SGL Carbon v Commission

51

2019/C 16/63

Case T-643/18: Action brought on 29 October 2018 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes)

52

2019/C 16/64

Case T-645/18: Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Bilbaína de Alquitranes v Commission

53

2019/C 16/65

Case T-647/18: Action brought on 29 October 2018 — ZQ v Commission

54

2019/C 16/66

Case T-648/18: Action brought on 22 October 2018 — Super bock group, SGPS v EUIPO — Agus (Crystal)

56

2019/C 16/67

Case T-650/18: Action brought on 29 October 2018 — Reaktor Group v EUIPO (REAKTOR)

56

2019/C 16/68

Case T-665/18: Action brought on 12 November 2018 — Soundio v EUIPO — E-Plus Mobilfunk (Vibble)

57

2019/C 16/69

Case T-667/18: Action brought on 9 November 2018 — Pinto Teixeira v EEAS

58

2019/C 16/70

Case T-671/18: Action brought on 15 November 2018 — ZU v Commission

58

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/1

---

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

(2019/C 16/01)

Last publication

OJ C 4, 7.1.2019

Past publications

OJ C 455, 17.12.2018

OJ C 445, 10.12.2018

OJ C 436, 3.12.2018

OJ C 427, 26.11.2018

OJ C 408, 12.11.2018

OJ C 399, 5.11.2018

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Stadt Wuppertal v Maria Elisabeth Bauer (C-569/16), Volker Willmeroth, in his capacity as owner of TWI Technische Wartung und Instandsetzung Volker Willmeroth e.K. v Martina Broßonn (C-570/16)

(Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Right to paid annual leave - Employment relationship terminated by the death of the worker - National legislation preventing the payment of an allowance to the legal heirs of a worker in lieu of paid annual leave not taken by him - Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 31(2) - Whether it may be relied upon in a dispute between individuals))

(2019/C 16/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stadt Wuppertal (C-569/16), Volker Willmeroth, in his capacity as owner of TWI Technische Wartung und Instandsetzung Volker Willmeroth e.K. (C-570/16)

Defendants: Maria Elisabeth Bauer (C-569/16), Martina Broßonn (C-570/16)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and of Article 31(2) 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, under which, where the employment relationship is terminated by the death of the worker, the right to paid annual leave acquired under those provisions and not taken by the worker before his death lapses without being able to give rise to a right to an allowance in lieu of that leave which is transferable to the employee’s legal heirs by inheritance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and of Article 31(2) 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, under which, where the employment relationship is terminated by the death of the worker, the right to paid annual leave acquired under those provisions and not taken by the worker before his death lapses without being able to give rise to a right to an allowance in lieu of that leave which is transferable to the employee’s legal heirs by inheritance.

| 2. | Where it is impossible to interpret a national rule such as that at issue in the main proceedings in a manner consistent with Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the national court, before which a dispute between the legal heir of a deceased worker and the former employer of that worker has been brought, must disapply that national legislation and ensure that the legal heir receives payment from the employer of an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave acquired under those provisions and not taken by the worker before his death. That obligation on the national court is dictated by Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights where the dispute is between the legal heir and an employer which has the status of a public authority, and under the second of those provisions where the dispute is between the legal heir and an employer who is a private individual. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Where it is impossible to interpret a national rule such as that at issue in the main proceedings in a manner consistent with Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the national court, before which a dispute between the legal heir of a deceased worker and the former employer of that worker has been brought, must disapply that national legislation and ensure that the legal heir receives payment from the employer of an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave acquired under those provisions and not taken by the worker before his death. That obligation on the national court is dictated by Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights where the dispute is between the legal heir and an employer which has the status of a public authority, and under the second of those provisions where the dispute is between the legal heir and an employer who is a private individual.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Sebastian W. Kreuziger v Land Berlin

(Case C-619/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Right to paid annual leave - National legislation providing for the loss of annual leave not taken and of the payment in lieu thereof, where the worker did not submit a request for leave before the termination of the employment relationship))

(2019/C 16/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sebastian W. Kreuziger

Respondent: Land Berlin

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it entails that, in the event that the worker did not ask to exercise his right to paid annual leave prior to the termination of the employment relationship, that worker loses — automatically and without prior verification of whether the employer had in fact enabled him, in particular through the provision of sufficient information, to exercise his right to leave prior to the termination of that relationship — the days of paid annual leave to which he was entitled under EU law on the date of the termination of that relationship, and, accordingly, his right to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl v European Commission, Italian Republic (C-622/16 P), European Commission v Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl, Italian Republic (C-623/16 P), European Commission v Pietro Ferracci, Italian Republic (C-624/16 P)

(Joined Cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Decision declaring the recovery of State aid incompatible with the internal market to be impossible - Decision finding that there is no State aid - Actions for annulment brought by competitors of beneficiaries of State aid - Admissibility - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern - Concept of ‘absolute impossibility’ of recovery of State aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Concepts of ‘undertaking’ and ‘economic activity’))

(2019/C 16/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

(C-622/16 P)

Appellant: Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl (represented by: E. Gambaro and F. Mazzocchi, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, P. Stancanelli and F. Tomat, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. De Bellis and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato)

(C-623/16 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, P. Stancanelli and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl (represented by: E. Gambaro and F. Mazzocchi, avvocati), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. De Bellis and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato)

(C-624/16 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, P. Stancanelli and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pietro Ferracci, Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. De Bellis and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2016, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission (T-220/13, not published, EU:T:2016:484), in so far as it dismissed the action brought by Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori for the annulment of Commission Decision 2013/284/EU of 19 December 2012 on State aid SA.20829 (C 26/2010, ex NN 43/2010 (ex CP 71/2006)) Scheme concerning the municipal real estate tax exemption granted to real estate used by non-commercial entities for specific purposes implemented by Italy, to the extent that the European Commission did not order recovery of the unlawful aid granted by means of the exemption from the Imposta communale sugli immobili (municipal tax on real property); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2016, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission (T-220/13, not published, EU:T:2016:484), in so far as it dismissed the action brought by Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori for the annulment of Commission Decision 2013/284/EU of 19 December 2012 on State aid SA.20829 (C 26/2010, ex NN 43/2010 (ex CP 71/2006)) Scheme concerning the municipal real estate tax exemption granted to real estate used by non-commercial entities for specific purposes implemented by Italy, to the extent that the European Commission did not order recovery of the unlawful aid granted by means of the exemption from the Imposta communale sugli immobili (municipal tax on real property);

| 2. | Dismisses the appeal in Case C-622/16 P as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the appeal in Case C-622/16 P as to the remainder;

| 3. | Annuls Decision 2013/284 to the extent that the European Commission did not order recovery of the unlawful aid granted by means of the exemption from the Imposta communale sugli immobili (municipal tax on real property); |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls Decision 2013/284 to the extent that the European Commission did not order recovery of the unlawful aid granted by means of the exemption from the Imposta communale sugli immobili (municipal tax on real property);

| 4. | Dismisses the appeals in Cases C-623/16 P and C-624/16 P; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the appeals in Cases C-623/16 P and C-624/16 P;

| 5. | Orders Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl to bear half of its own costs incurred in connection with the appeal in Case C-622/16 P and to pay two-thirds of the European Commission’s costs and bear two-thirds of its own costs in connection with the action before the General Court of the European Union in Case T-220/13; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl to bear half of its own costs incurred in connection with the appeal in Case C-622/16 P and to pay two-thirds of the European Commission’s costs and bear two-thirds of its own costs in connection with the action before the General Court of the European Union in Case T-220/13;

| 6. | Orders the European Commission, as regards its own costs, to bear one-third of the costs in connection with the action before the General Court of the European Union in Case T-220/13 and to bear the costs in connection with the appeals in Cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P and, as regards the costs of Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl, to pay one-third of the costs in connection with the action before the General Court of the European Union in Case T-220/13, to pay half the costs in connection with the appeal in Case C-622/16 P, and to pay the costs incurred in Case C-623/16 P; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the European Commission, as regards its own costs, to bear one-third of the costs in connection with the action before the General Court of the European Union in Case T-220/13 and to bear the costs in connection with the appeals in Cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P and, as regards the costs of Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl, to pay one-third of the costs in connection with the action before the General Court of the European Union in Case T-220/13, to pay half the costs in connection with the appeal in Case C-622/16 P, and to pay the costs incurred in Case C-623/16 P;

| 7. | Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs in Cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs in Cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. v Tetsuji Shimizu

(Case C-684/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Right to paid annual leave - National legislation providing for the loss of annual leave not taken and of the allowance in lieu thereof where an application for leave has not been made by the worker prior to the termination of the employment relationship - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 31(2) - Whether it may be relied upon in a dispute between individuals))

(2019/C 16/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V.

Defendant: Tetsuji Shimizu

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and of Article 31(2) 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, under which, in the event that the worker did not ask to exercise his right to paid annual leave during the reference period concerned, that worker loses, at the end of that period — automatically and without prior verification of whether the employer had in fact enabled him to exercise that right, in particular through the provision of sufficient information — the days of paid annual leave acquired under those provisions in respect of that period, and, accordingly, his right to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken in the event that the employment relationship is terminated. It is, in that regard, for the referring court to determine, taking into consideration the whole body of domestic law and applying the interpretative methods recognised by it, whether it can arrive at an interpretation of that right capable of ensuring the full effectiveness of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and of Article 31(2) 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, under which, in the event that the worker did not ask to exercise his right to paid annual leave during the reference period concerned, that worker loses, at the end of that period — automatically and without prior verification of whether the employer had in fact enabled him to exercise that right, in particular through the provision of sufficient information — the days of paid annual leave acquired under those provisions in respect of that period, and, accordingly, his right to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken in the event that the employment relationship is terminated. It is, in that regard, for the referring court to determine, taking into consideration the whole body of domestic law and applying the interpretative methods recognised by it, whether it can arrive at an interpretation of that right capable of ensuring the full effectiveness of EU law.

| 2. | In the event that it is impossible to interpret national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in a manner consistent with Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it follows from the latter provision that a national court hearing a dispute between a worker and his former employer who is a private individual must disapply the national legislation and ensure that, should the employer not be able to show that it has exercised all due diligence in enabling the worker actually to take the paid annual leave to which he is entitled under EU law, the worker cannot be deprived of his acquired rights to that paid annual leave or, correspondingly, and in the event of the termination of the employment relationship, to the allowance in lieu of leave not taken which must be paid, in that case, directly by the employer concerned. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that it is impossible to interpret national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in a manner consistent with Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it follows from the latter provision that a national court hearing a dispute between a worker and his former employer who is a private individual must disapply the national legislation and ensure that, should the employer not be able to show that it has exercised all due diligence in enabling the worker actually to take the paid annual leave to which he is entitled under EU law, the worker cannot be deprived of his acquired rights to that paid annual leave or, correspondingly, and in the event of the termination of the employment relationship, to the allowance in lieu of leave not taken which must be paid, in that case, directly by the employer concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche SpA and Others v Regionale Geschäftsstelle Leoben des Arbeitsmarktservice

(Case C-18/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Accession of new Member States - Republic of Croatia - Transitional measures - Freedom to provide services - Directive 96/71/EC - Posting of workers - Posting of Croatian and third-country nationals to Austria through the intermediary of an undertaking established in Italy))

(2019/C 16/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche SpA, Dragan Panic, Ivan Arnautov, Jakov Mandic, Miroslav Brnjac, Nicolai Dorassevitch, Alen Mihovic

Respondent: Regionale Geschäftsstelle Leoben des Arbeitsmarktservice

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 56 and 57 TFEU, together with Chapter 2, paragraph 2, of Annex V to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is entitled to restrict, by the requirement of a work permit, the posting of Croatian workers who are employed by an undertaking which has its registered office in Croatia, when the posting of those workers takes place through their hiring-out, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, to an undertaking established in another Member State for the purposes of the provision of services in the first of those Member States by the latter undertaking. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 56 and 57 TFEU, together with Chapter 2, paragraph 2, of Annex V to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is entitled to restrict, by the requirement of a work permit, the posting of Croatian workers who are employed by an undertaking which has its registered office in Croatia, when the posting of those workers takes place through their hiring-out, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, to an undertaking established in another Member State for the purposes of the provision of services in the first of those Member States by the latter undertaking.

| 2. | Articles 56 and 57 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not entitled to require that third-country nationals, hired out to an undertaking established in another Member State, by another undertaking which is also established in that other Member State, for the purposes of providing a service in the first of those Member States, must have a work permit. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 56 and 57 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not entitled to require that third-country nationals, hired out to an undertaking established in another Member State, by another undertaking which is also established in that other Member State, for the purposes of providing a service in the first of those Member States, must have a work permit.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bleiburg/Okrajno Sodišče Pliberk — Austria) — Čepelnik d.o.o. v Michael Vavti

(Case C-33/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Services in the internal market - Directive 2006/123/EC - Labour law - Posting of workers in order to carry out construction works - Reporting of workers - Retention and translation of payslips - Suspension of payments - Payment of a security by the recipient of the services - Surety for a possible fine to be imposed on the service provider))

(2019/C 16/07)

Languages of the case: German and Slovenian

Referring court

Bezirksgericht Bleiburg/Okrajno Sodišče Pliberk

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Čepelnik d.o.o.

Defendant: Michael Vavti

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the competent authorities can order a commissioning party established in that Member State to suspend payments to his contractor established in another Member State, or even to pay a security in an amount equivalent to the price still owed for the works in order to guarantee payment of the fine which might be imposed on that contractor in the event of a proven infringement of the labour law of the first Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — X (C-47/17), X (C-48/17) v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Joined Cases C-47/17 and C-48/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Criteria and mechanisms for determination - Request to take charge of or take back an asylum seeker - Negative reply from the requested Member State - Re-examination request - Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1560/2003 - Time limit for replying - Expiry - Effects))

(2019/C 16/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X (C-47/17), X (C-48/17)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 118/2014 of 30 January 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the course of the procedure for determining the Member State that is responsible for processing an application for international protection, the Member State which receives a take charge or take back request under Articles 21 and 23 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, which, after making the necessary checks, has replied in the negative to that request within the time limits laid down in Articles 22 and 25 of Regulation No 604/2013 and which, thereafter, receives a re-examination request under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003, must endeavour, in the spirit of sincere cooperation, to reply to the re-examination request within a period of two weeks.

Where the requested Member State does not reply within that period of two weeks to the re-examination request, the additional re-examination procedure shall be definitively terminated, with the result that the requesting Member State must, as from the expiry of that period, be considered to be responsible for the examination of the application for international protection, unless it still has available to it the time needed to lodge, within the mandatory time limits laid down for that purpose in Article 21(1) and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 604/2013, a further take charge or take back request.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-93/17) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Recovery requirement - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil its obligations - Undertaking which engages in both civil and military activities - Non-implementation - Essential interests of the security of a Member State - Article 346(1)(b) TFEU - Financial penalties - Periodic penalty payment - Lump sum - Ability to pay - ‘N’ Factor - Factors which are the basis for the assessment of the ability to pay - Gross domestic product - Weighting of votes of the Member State in the Council of the European Union - New voting rules in the Council))

(2019/C 16/09)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

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

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and A. Samoni-Rantou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take, on the date on which the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice issued on 27 November 2014 by the European Commission, all the measures all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 28 June 2012, Commission v Greece (C-485/10, EU:C:2012:395), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFUE. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take, on the date on which the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice issued on 27 November 2014 by the European Commission, all the measures all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 28 June 2012, Commission v Greece (C-485/10, EU:C:2012:395), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFUE.

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 7 294 000 for each six month period from the date of delivery of the present judgement until the date of compliance with the judgment of 28 June 2012, Commission v Greece (C-485/10, EU:C:2012:395). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 7 294 000 for each six month period from the date of delivery of the present judgement until the date of compliance with the judgment of 28 June 2012, Commission v Greece (C-485/10, EU:C:2012:395).

| 3. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission a lump sum EUR 10 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission a lump sum EUR 10 000 000.

| 4. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 November 2018 — Commission v Hungary

(Case C-171/17) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/123/EC - Articles 15 to 17 - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - National mobile payment system - Monopoly))

(2019/C 16/10)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by instituting and maintaining in force the national mobile payment system governed by a nemzeti mobil fizetési rendszerről szóló 2011. évi CC. törvény (Law CC of 2011 on the national mobile payment system) and by 356/2012. (XII. 13.) Korm. rendelet a nemzeti mobil fizetési rendszerről szóló törvény végrehajtásáról (Governmental Decree No 356/2012 implementing the mobile payment system law), Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Article 56 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by instituting and maintaining in force the national mobile payment system governed by a nemzeti mobil fizetési rendszerről szóló 2011. évi CC. törvény (Law CC of 2011 on the national mobile payment system) and by 356/2012. (XII. 13.) Korm. rendelet a nemzeti mobil fizetési rendszerről szóló törvény végrehajtásáról (Governmental Decree No 356/2012 implementing the mobile payment system law), Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Article 56 TFEU;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and Hungary to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and Hungary to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor d.d. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-215/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Re-use of public sector information - Directive 2003/98/EC - Article 1(2)(c), third indent - Prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms - Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Information to be published by credit institutions and investment firms - Article 432(2) - Exceptions to public disclosure requirements - Information considered commercially sensitive or confidential - Applicability - Credit institutions predominantly owned by the State - National legislation laying down the public nature of certain commercial information held by those institutions))

(2019/C 16/11)

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor d.d.

Respondent: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(c), third indent, of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, and Article 432(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a bank which has been under the dominant influence of a body governed by public law to disclose information on contracts provided for consultancy and legal services, copyright contracts and other services of an intellectual nature which it concluded during the period in which it was under that dominant influence, with no exceptions on the ground of the protection of that bank’s business secrets, and, accordingly, as not precluding such national legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Renerga’ v AB ‘Energijos skirstymo operatorius’, AB ‘Lietuvos energijos gamyba’

(Case C-238/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 3(2), (6) and (15) and Article 36(f) - Internal market in electricity - Hypothetical nature of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling))

(2019/C 16/12)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘Renerga’

Defendants: AB ‘Energijos skirstymo operatorius’, AB ‘Lietuvos energijos gamyba’

Third parties: UAB ‘BALTPOOL’, Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybė, Achema AB, Achemos Grupė UAB

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas (District Court, City of Vilnius, Lithuania), made by decision of 11 April 2017, is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — proceedings relating to the extradition of Denis Raugevicius

(Case C-247/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - European Union Citizenship - Articles 18 and 21 TFEU - Request to a Member State by a third country seeking extradition of an EU citizen who is a national of another Member State and who has exercised his right to free movement in the first Member State - Request made for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence and not for the purpose of prosecution - Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals - Restriction on free movement - Justification based on the prevention of impunity - Proportionality))

(2019/C 16/13)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

Denis Raugevicius

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18 and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where an extradition request has been made by a third country for an EU citizen who has exercised his right to free movement, not for the purpose of prosecution, but for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence, the requested Member State, whose national law prohibits the extradition of its own nationals out of the European Union for the purpose of enforcing a sentence and makes provision for the possibility that such a sentence pronounced abroad may be served on its territory, is required to ensure that that EU citizen, provided that he resides permanently in its territory, receives the same treatment as that accorded to its own nationals in relation to extradition.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — C, A v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-257/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction of the Court - Directive 2003/86/EC - Right to family reunification - Article 15 - Refusal to grant an autonomous residence permit - National legislation providing for a requirement to pass a civic integration examination))

(2019/C 16/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: C, A

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The Court of Justice has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 15 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in situations such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on the grant of an autonomous residence permit to a third country national, who is a family member of an EU citizen who has not exercised his right of free movement, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such situations under national law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Court of Justice has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 15 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in situations such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on the grant of an autonomous residence permit to a third country national, who is a family member of an EU citizen who has not exercised his right of free movement, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such situations under national law.

| 2. | Article 15(1) and (4) of Directive 2003/86 does not preclude national legislation which permits an application for an autonomous residence permit, lodged by a third country national who has resided over five years in a Member State by virtue of family reunification, to be rejected on the ground that he has not shown that he has passed a civic integration test on the language and society of that Member State provided that the detailed rules for the requirement to pass that examination do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of facilitating the integration of those third country nationals. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 15(1) and (4) of Directive 2003/86 does not preclude national legislation which permits an application for an autonomous residence permit, lodged by a third country national who has resided over five years in a Member State by virtue of family reunification, to be rejected on the ground that he has not shown that he has passed a civic integration test on the language and society of that Member State provided that the detailed rules for the requirement to pass that examination do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of facilitating the integration of those third country nationals.

| 3. | Article 15(1) and (4) of Directive 2003/86 does not preclude national legislation which provides that an autonomous residence permit cannot be issued earlier than the date on which it was applied for. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 15(1) and (4) of Directive 2003/86 does not preclude national legislation which provides that an autonomous residence permit cannot be issued earlier than the date on which it was applied for.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA, Vereniging Leefmilieu v College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg, College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland (C-293/17), Stichting Werkgroep Behoud de Peel v College van gedeputeerde staten van Noord-Brabant (C-294/17)

(Joined Cases C-293/17 and C-294/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Special areas of conservation - Article 6 - Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a site - National programmatic approach to tackling nitrogen deposition - Concepts of ‘project’ and ‘appropriate assessment’ - Overall assessment prior to individual authorisations for farms which cause nitrogen deposition))

(2019/C 16/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA, Vereniging Leefmilieu

Defendants: College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg, College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland

Interveners: G. H. Wildenbeest, Maatschap Smeets, Maatschap Lintzen-Crooijmans, W. A. H. Corstjens (C-293/17)

and

Applicant: Stichting Werkgroep Behoud de Peel

Defendant: College van gedeputeerde staten van Noord-Brabant

Interveners: Maatschap Gebr. Lammers, Landbouwbedrijf Swinkels, Pluimveehouderij Van Diepen VOF, Vermeerderingsbedrijf Engelen, Varkenshouderij Limburglaan BV, Madou Agro Varkens CV (C-294/17)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that the grazing of cattle and the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface in the vicinity of Natura 2000 sites may be classified as a ‘project’ within the meaning of that provision, even if those activities, in so far as they are not a physical intervention in the natural surroundings, do not constitute a ‘project’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that the grazing of cattle and the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface in the vicinity of Natura 2000 sites may be classified as a ‘project’ within the meaning of that provision, even if those activities, in so far as they are not a physical intervention in the natural surroundings, do not constitute a ‘project’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

| 2. | Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that a recurring activity, such as the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface, authorised under national law before the entry into force of that directive, may be regarded as one and the same project for the purposes of that provision, exempted from a new authorisation procedure, in so far as it constitutes a single operation characterised by a common purpose, continuity and, inter alia, the location and the conditions in which it is carried out being the same. If a single project was authorised before the system of protection laid down by that provision became applicable to the site in question, the carrying out of that project may nevertheless fall within the scope of Article 6(2) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that a recurring activity, such as the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface, authorised under national law before the entry into force of that directive, may be regarded as one and the same project for the purposes of that provision, exempted from a new authorisation procedure, in so far as it constitutes a single operation characterised by a common purpose, continuity and, inter alia, the location and the conditions in which it is carried out being the same. If a single project was authorised before the system of protection laid down by that provision became applicable to the site in question, the carrying out of that project may nevertheless fall within the scope of Article 6(2) of that directive.

| 3. | Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as not precluding national programmatic legislation which allows the competent authorities to authorise projects on the basis of an ‘appropriate assessment’ within the meaning of that provision, carried out in advance and in which a specific overall amount of nitrogen deposition has been deemed compatible with that legislation’s objectives of protection. That is so, however, only in so far as a thorough and in-depth examination of the scientific soundness of that assessment makes it possible to ensure that there is no reasonable scientific doubt as to the absence of adverse effects of each plan or project on the integrity of the site concerned, which it is for the national court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as not precluding national programmatic legislation which allows the competent authorities to authorise projects on the basis of an ‘appropriate assessment’ within the meaning of that provision, carried out in advance and in which a specific overall amount of nitrogen deposition has been deemed compatible with that legislation’s objectives of protection. That is so, however, only in so far as a thorough and in-depth examination of the scientific soundness of that assessment makes it possible to ensure that there is no reasonable scientific doubt as to the absence of adverse effects of each plan or project on the integrity of the site concerned, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

| 4. | Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as not precluding national programmatic legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, exempting certain projects which do not exceed a certain threshold value or a certain limit value in terms of nitrogen deposition from the requirement for individual approval, if the national court is satisfied that the ‘appropriate assessment’ within the meaning of that provision, carried out in advance, meets the criterion that there is no reasonable scientific doubt as to the lack of adverse effects of those plans or projects on the integrity of the sites concerned. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as not precluding national programmatic legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, exempting certain projects which do not exceed a certain threshold value or a certain limit value in terms of nitrogen deposition from the requirement for individual approval, if the national court is satisfied that the ‘appropriate assessment’ within the meaning of that provision, carried out in advance, meets the criterion that there is no reasonable scientific doubt as to the lack of adverse effects of those plans or projects on the integrity of the sites concerned.

| 5. | Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as precluding national programmatic legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a certain category of projects, in the present case the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface and the grazing of cattle, to be implemented without being subject to a permit requirement and, accordingly, to an individualised appropriate assessment of its implications for the sites concerned, unless the objective circumstances make it possible to rule out with certainty any possibility that those projects, individually or in combination with other projects, may significantly affect those sites, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as precluding national programmatic legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a certain category of projects, in the present case the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface and the grazing of cattle, to be implemented without being subject to a permit requirement and, accordingly, to an individualised appropriate assessment of its implications for the sites concerned, unless the objective circumstances make it possible to rule out with certainty any possibility that those projects, individually or in combination with other projects, may significantly affect those sites, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

| 6. | Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that an ‘appropriate assessment’ within the meaning of that provision may not take into account the existence of ‘conservation measures’ within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that article, ‘preventive measures’ within the meaning of paragraph 2 of that article, measures specifically adopted for a programme such as that at issue in the main proceedings or ‘autonomous’ measures, in so far as those measures are not part of that programme, if the expected benefits of those measures are not certain at the time of that assessment. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that an ‘appropriate assessment’ within the meaning of that provision may not take into account the existence of ‘conservation measures’ within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that article, ‘preventive measures’ within the meaning of paragraph 2 of that article, measures specifically adopted for a programme such as that at issue in the main proceedings or ‘autonomous’ measures, in so far as those measures are not part of that programme, if the expected benefits of those measures are not certain at the time of that assessment.

| 7. | Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that measures introduced by national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, including procedures for the surveillance and monitoring of farms whose activities cause nitrogen deposition and the possibility of imposing penalties, up to and including the closure of those farms, are sufficient for the purposes of complying with that provision. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that measures introduced by national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, including procedures for the surveillance and monitoring of farms whose activities cause nitrogen deposition and the possibility of imposing penalties, up to and including the closure of those farms, are sufficient for the purposes of complying with that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad — Bulgaria) — Wiemer & Trachte GmbH, in liquidation v Zhan Oved Tadzher

(Case C-296/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 3(1) - International jurisdiction - Action to set a transaction aside - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened))

(2019/C 16/16)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Wiemer & Trachte GmbH, in liquidation

Respondent in cassation: Zhan Oved Tadzher

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened to hear and determine an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of the debtor’s insolvency which has been brought against a defendant whose registered office or habitual residence is in another Member State is exclusive.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/15

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Hellenische Republik v Leo Kuhn

(Case C-308/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Scope - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ - Bonds issued by a Member State - Involvement of the private sector in the restructuring of public debt of that State - Unilateral and retroactive adjustment of the borrowing terms - Collective action clauses - Action brought against the State by private creditors who hold those bonds as natural persons - Liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority))

(2019/C 16/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Hellenische Republik

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Leo Kuhn

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that a dispute, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to an action brought by a natural person having acquired bonds issued by a Member State, against that State and seeking to contest the exchange of those bonds with bonds of a lower value, imposed on that natural person by the effect of a law adopted in exceptional circumstances by the national legislator, according to which those terms were unilaterally and retroactively amended by the introduction of a CAC allowing a majority of holders of the relevant bonds to impose that exchange on the minority, does not fall within ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that article.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV

(Case C-310/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Scope - Article 2 - Reproduction rights - Concept of ‘work’ - Taste of a food product))

(2019/C 16/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Levola Hengelo BV

Respondent: Smilde Foods BV

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding (i) the taste of a food product from being protected by copyright under that directive and (ii) national legislation from being interpreted in such a way that it grants copyright protection to such a taste.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg eV v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-330/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Article 2(18) - Article 23(1) - Transport - Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union - Information - Indication of the final price to be paid - Inclusion of the air fare in the final price to be paid - Obligation to indicate air fares in euros or local currency - Choice of the relevant local currency - Connecting factors))

(2019/C 16/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg eV

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(1) in conjunction with Article 2(18) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that, when indicating air fares for intra-Community air services, air carriers who do not express those fares in euros are required to choose a local currency that is objectively linked to the service offered. That is the case in particular of the currency which is legal tender in the Member State in which the place of departure or arrival of the flight is located.

Thus, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which an air carrier established in a Member State in which the euro is legal tender offers on the internet an air service for which the place of departure of the flight is located in another Member State in which a currency other than the euro is legal tender, the air fares may, if they are not expressed in euros, be indicated in the currency which is legal tender in that other Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 — Republic of Estonia v European Commission, Republic of Latvia

(Case C-334/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common organisation of the markets - Amount to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated - Decision 2006/776/EC - Request for modification of a final decision of the European Commission - Letter of refusal - Appeal against that letter - Admissibility))

(2019/C 16/20)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, acting as Agents, and by S. Mody, vandeadvokaat), Republic of Latvia

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | orders the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto — Italy) — Memoria Srl, Antonia Dall’Antonia v Comune di Padova

(Case C-342/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Restrictions on freedom of establishment - Jurisdiction of the Court - Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling - Purely domestic situation - National legislation prohibiting any profit-making activity relating to the safekeeping of cinerary urns - Proportionality test - Coherence of national rules))

(2019/C 16/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Memoria Srl, Antonia Dall’Antonia

Defendant: Comune di Padova

Intervener: Alessandra Calore

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits, even despite the express wishes of the deceased, the recipient of a cinerary urn from entrusting its safekeeping to a third party, and requires him to store the urn in his home, unless it is entrusted to a municipal cemetery, and furthermore prohibits any activity carried out for profit relating, even non-exclusively, to the safekeeping of cinerary urns, on whatever basis and for whatever period.

---

(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K, B v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-380/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction of the Court - Directive 2003/86/EC - Right to family reunification - Article 12 - Failure to comply with the time limit of three months following the grant of international protection - Beneficiary of subsidiary protection status - Rejection of an application for a visa))

(2019/C 16/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: K, B

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The Court of Justice has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 12(1) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection’s right to family reunification, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such a situation under national law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Court of Justice has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 12(1) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection’s right to family reunification, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such a situation under national law.

| 2. | Article 12(1) of Directive 2003/86 does not preclude national legislation which permits an application for family reunification lodged on behalf of a member of a refugee’s family, on the basis of the more favourable provisions for refugees of Chapter V of that directive, to be rejected on the ground that that application was lodged more than three months after the sponsor was granted refugee status, whilst affording the possibility of lodging a fresh application under a different set of rules provided that that legislation:






  — | lays down that such a ground of refusal cannot apply to situations in which particular circumstances render the late submission of the initial application objectively excusable; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Article 12(1) of Directive 2003/86 does not preclude national legislation which permits an application for family reunification lodged on behalf of a member of a refugee’s family, on the basis of the more favourable provisions for refugees of Chapter V of that directive, to be rejected on the ground that that application was lodged more than three months after the sponsor was granted refugee status, whilst affording the possibility of lodging a fresh application under a different set of rules provided that that legislation:

—

lays down that such a ground of refusal cannot apply to situations in which particular circumstances render the late submission of the initial application objectively excusable;

| — | lays down that the persons concerned are to be fully informed of the consequences of the decision rejecting their initial application and of the measures which they can take to assert their rights to family reunification effectively; and |
| --- | --- |

—

lays down that the persons concerned are to be fully informed of the consequences of the decision rejecting their initial application and of the measures which they can take to assert their rights to family reunification effectively; and

| — | ensures that sponsors recognised as refugees continue to benefit from the more favourable conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification applicable to refugees, specified in Articles 10 and 11 or in Article 12(2) of the directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

ensures that sponsors recognised as refugees continue to benefit from the more favourable conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification applicable to refugees, specified in Articles 10 and 11 or in Article 12(2) of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/19

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Dermod Patrick O’Brien v Ministry of Justice, formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs

(Case C-432/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Part-time workers - Retirement pension - Calculation of the amount of the pension - Account taken of years of service completed before expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 97/81/EC - Immediate application to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old law))

(2019/C 16/23)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dermod Patrick O’Brien

Respondent: Ministry of Justice, formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, periods of service prior to the deadline for transposing Directive 97/81, as amended by Directive 98/23, must be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the retirement pension entitlement.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/20

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Heiko Jonny Maniero v Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes eV

(Case C-457/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin - Directive 2000/43/EC - Article 3(1)(g) - Scope - Concept of ‘education’ - The award by a private foundation of scholarships aimed at promoting projects for legal research and studies abroad - Article 2(2)(b) - Indirect discrimination - Award of scholarships conditional on applicants having first passed the First State Law Examination (Erste Juristische Staatsprüfung)))

(2019/C 16/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heiko Jonny Maniero

Defendant: Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes eV

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(1)(g) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin must be interpreted as meaning that the award by a private foundation of scholarships to support research projects or studies abroad falls within the concept of ‘education’, within the meaning of that provision, where there is a sufficiently close link between the assigned financial payments and participation in those research projects or studies which, themselves, fall within that same concept of ‘education’. That is the case, in particular, where such financial payments are linked to the participation of potential candidates in such research projects or studies, and are designed to remove all or some of the potential financial barriers to participation, and where those payments are appropriate to achieve that aim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(1)(g) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin must be interpreted as meaning that the award by a private foundation of scholarships to support research projects or studies abroad falls within the concept of ‘education’, within the meaning of that provision, where there is a sufficiently close link between the assigned financial payments and participation in those research projects or studies which, themselves, fall within that same concept of ‘education’. That is the case, in particular, where such financial payments are linked to the participation of potential candidates in such research projects or studies, and are designed to remove all or some of the potential financial barriers to participation, and where those payments are appropriate to achieve that aim.

| 2. | Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a private foundation established in a Member State restricts the award of scholarships to support research projects or studies abroad to candidates having successfully completed, in that Member State, a law examination, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a private foundation established in a Member State restricts the award of scholarships to support research projects or studies abroad to candidates having successfully completed, in that Member State, a law examination, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Brian Holohan and Others v An Bord Pleanála

(Case C-461/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Conservation of wild fauna and flora - Road construction project - Appropriate assessment of effects on the environment - Extent of the obligation to state reasons - Directive 2011/92/EU - Assessment of the implications of certain projects - Annex IV, Point 3 - Article 5(3)(d) - Meaning of the concept of ‘main alternatives’))

(2019/C 16/25)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Brian Holohan, Richard Guilfoyle, Noric Guilfoyle, Liam Donegan

Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

Intervener: National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that an ‘appropriate assessment’ must, on the one hand, catalogue the entirety of habitat types and species for which a site is protected, and, on the other, identify and examine both the implications of the proposed project for the species present on that site, and for which that site has not been listed, and the implications for habitat types and species to be found outside the boundaries of that site, provided that those implications are liable to affect the conservation objectives of the site. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that an ‘appropriate assessment’ must, on the one hand, catalogue the entirety of habitat types and species for which a site is protected, and, on the other, identify and examine both the implications of the proposed project for the species present on that site, and for which that site has not been listed, and the implications for habitat types and species to be found outside the boundaries of that site, provided that those implications are liable to affect the conservation objectives of the site.

| 2. | Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority is permitted to grant to a plan or project consent which leaves the developer free to determine subsequently certain parameters relating to the construction phase, such as the location of the construction compound and haul routes, only if that authority is certain that the development consent granted establishes conditions that are strict enough to guarantee that those parameters will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority is permitted to grant to a plan or project consent which leaves the developer free to determine subsequently certain parameters relating to the construction phase, such as the location of the construction compound and haul routes, only if that authority is certain that the development consent granted establishes conditions that are strict enough to guarantee that those parameters will not adversely affect the integrity of the site.

| 3. | Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authority rejects the findings in a scientific expert opinion recommending that additional information be obtained, the ‘appropriate assessment’ must include an explicit and detailed statement of reasons capable of dispelling all reasonable scientific doubt concerning the effects of the work envisaged on the site concerned. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authority rejects the findings in a scientific expert opinion recommending that additional information be obtained, the ‘appropriate assessment’ must include an explicit and detailed statement of reasons capable of dispelling all reasonable scientific doubt concerning the effects of the work envisaged on the site concerned.

| 4. | Article 5(1) and (3) of, and Annex IV to, Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, must be interpreted as meaning that the developer is obliged to supply information that expressly addresses the significant effects of its project on all species identified in the statement that is supplied pursuant to those provisions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 5(1) and (3) of, and Annex IV to, Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, must be interpreted as meaning that the developer is obliged to supply information that expressly addresses the significant effects of its project on all species identified in the statement that is supplied pursuant to those provisions.

| 5. | Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the developer must supply information in relation to the environmental impact of both the chosen option and of all the main alternatives studied by the developer, together with the reasons for his choice, taking into account at least the environmental effects, even if such an alternative was rejected at an early stage. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the developer must supply information in relation to the environmental impact of both the chosen option and of all the main alternatives studied by the developer, together with the reasons for his choice, taking into account at least the environmental effects, even if such an alternative was rejected at an early stage.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-484/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/86/EC - Right to family reunification - Article 15 - Refusal to grant an autonomous residence permit - National legislation providing for a requirement to pass a civic integration examination))

(2019/C 16/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: K

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) and (4) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits an application for an autonomous residence permit, lodged by a third country national who has resided over five years in a Member State by virtue of family reunification, to be rejected on the ground that he has not shown that he has passed a civic integration test on the language and society of that Member State provided that the detailed rules for the requirement to pass that examination do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of facilitating the integration of those third country nationals, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova — Romania) — Cartrans Spedition Srl v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Prahova, Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii

(Case C-495/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 146(1)(e) and Article 153 - Road transport transactions directly connected with the export of goods - Supply of services by intermediaries taking part in such transactions - Rules on proof of export of goods - Customs declaration - TIR carnet))

(2019/C 16/27)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Prahova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cartrans Spedition Srl

Defendants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Prahova, Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii

Operative part of the judgment

Article 146(1)(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, on the one hand, and that provision in conjunction with Article 153 of that directive, on the other hand, must be interpreted as precluding a tax practice of a Member State under which the exemption from value added tax, for, respectively, the supply of transport services directly connected with the export of goods and for the supply of services by intermediaries taking part in those supplies of transport services is subject to the taxable person producing a customs export declaration in respect of the relevant goods. In that regard, it is for the competent authorities, for the purposes of granting those exemptions, to examine whether the meeting of the condition relating to the export of the relevant goods can be inferred, with a sufficiently high degree of probability, from all of the information available to those authorities. In that context, a TIR carnet which is certified by the customs offices of the third country for which the goods are destined, and which is produced by the taxable person, constitutes evidence which, in principle, those authorities must duly take into account, unless they have specific reasons to doubt the authenticity or reliability of that document.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — C&D Foods Acquisition ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-502/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Proposed sale of shares in a sub-subsidiary - Expenditure associated with the provision of services acquired for the purposes of that sale - Sale not carried out - Request for a deduction of input tax - Scope of VAT))

(2019/C 16/28)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C&D Foods Acquisition ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2, 9 and 168 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 share disposal transaction, envisaged but not carried out, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for which the direct and exclusive reason does not lie in the taxable economic activity of the company concerned, or which does not constitute the direct, permanent and necessary extension of that economic activity, does not come within the scope of value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2016.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/24

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 — BPC Lux 2 Sàrl v European Commission, Portuguese Republic

(Case C-544/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo SA - Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank - Decision of the European Commission declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Interest in bringing proceedings - Action before the national courts seeking annulment of the decision to put Banco Espírito Santo into resolution))

(2019/C 16/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl (represented by: J. Webber and M. Steenson, Solicitors, B. Woolgar, Barrister, and K. Bacon QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2017, BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission (T-812/14, not published, EU:T:2017:560); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2017, BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission (T-812/14, not published, EU:T:2017:560);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S

(Case C-592/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings and subheadings 4421, 7326, 7318 15 90, 7318 19 00 and 9403 90 10 - Article specially designed to mount child safety gates - Dumping - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China - World Trade Organisation (WTO) Anti-Dumping Agreement - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 3(2) and Article 4(1) - Definition of Community industry))

(2019/C 16/30)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: Baby Dan A/S

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The Combined Nomenclature listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, and from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that an article, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a movable child safety gate to be mounted to a wall or a door frame, does not constitute part of those gates and must be classified under subheading 7318 15 90 of the Combined Nomenclature. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Combined Nomenclature listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, and from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that an article, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a movable child safety gate to be mounted to a wall or a door frame, does not constitute part of those gates and must be classified under subheading 7318 15 90 of the Combined Nomenclature.

| 2. | Examination of the fourth question referred has not revealed any factors of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Examination of the fourth question referred has not revealed any factors of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China.

---

(1)  OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/25

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — ‘BTA Baltic Insurance Company’ AS, formerly ‘Balcia Insurance’ SE v ‘Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams’ AS

(Case C-648/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ - Accident involving two vehicles parked in a car park - Material damage to a vehicle caused by a passenger from a neighbouring vehicle opening the vehicle door))

(2019/C 16/31)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘BTA Baltic Insurance Company’ AS, formerly ‘Balcia Insurance’ SE

Defendant:‘Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams’ AS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’, set out in that provision, covers a situation in which the passenger of a vehicle parked in a car park, in opening the door of that vehicle, scraped against and damaged the vehicle parked next to it.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/26

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano

(Case C-426/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Beneficiary of legal aid - Remuneration of legal aid lawyers - Fee scale set by order of the Bar Council - No prior information on fees provided by the lawyer to her client - Complaint as to fees - Examination as to whether terms and practices are unfair - Main dispute - Referral to a competent body - No referral to the referring court - Answers to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Utility - None - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2019/C 16/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elena Barba Giménez

Defendant: Francisca Carrión Lozano

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Social Court No 2, Terrassa, Spain), by decision of 27 June 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/26

---

Appeal brought on 3 May 2018 by UF against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-422/17 UF v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-300/18 P)

(2019/C 16/33)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Appellant: UF (represented by: L. Gudaitė, advokatė)

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

By order of 11 October 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) decided that the appeal was manifestly unfounded.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/27

---

Appeal brought on 15 August 2018 by Xabier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 29 May 2018 in Case T-577/15, Xabier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez v EUIPO — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, S.L.

(Case C-534/18 P)

(2019/C 16/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Xabier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, S.L.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismisses the first plea in law of the appellant’s action before the General Court and in so far as it dismisses in part the third plea in law of that action; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismisses the first plea in law of the appellant’s action before the General Court and in so far as it dismisses in part the third plea in law of that action;

| — | grant the form of order sought under the first plea in law of the appellant’s action before the General Court or, in the alternative, grant the form of order sought under the third plea in law of that action; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order sought under the first plea in law of the appellant’s action before the General Court or, in the alternative, grant the form of order sought under the third plea in law of that action;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay all of the appellant’s costs incurred before the General Court and in the context of this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay all of the appellant’s costs incurred before the General Court and in the context of this appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The
  first ground of appeal
  , which is divided into six sub-grounds, is brought against the grounds of the judgment under appeal which, having found that the Board of Appeal was fully entitled to disregard the supplementary written pleading submitted within the time limit by the appellant before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, dismissed the appellant’s first plea in law before the General Court alleging that the decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO infringed Articles 63(1), 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009. (1)

The first sub-ground alleges infringement of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, on the ground that there was a failure by the General Court to state reasons when, in the judgment under appeal, there was no ruling on the argument, developed by the appellant at the hearing, that the line of argument developed by EUIPO in its response is inadmissible.

The second sub-ground alleges: (i) infringement of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, on the ground that the General Court failed to fulfil its obligation to find of its own motion that the contested decision had failed to state reasons regarding the grounds on which the appellant’s request to have reanalysed the proof of use submitted before the Cancellation Division was not taken into account; (ii) infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence in that the judgment under appeal accepted the ex novo reasoning developed by EUIPO in its response, instead of the Court finding of its own motion that the decision of the Board of Appeal failed to state reasons; (iii) distortion of the facts when the judgment under appeal found that the Board of Appeal was fully entitled to disregard the appellant’s written pleading, in spite of the fact that the Board of Appeal did not disregard that pleading.

The third sub-ground alleges distortion of the facts and, specifically, distortion of the arguments in the statement of grounds of appeal (initial and supplementary) submitted by the appellant before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

The fourth sub-ground alleges infringement of Articles 63(1), 64(1), 76(1) and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009, in that the judgment under appeal misinterpreted those articles, thereby validating the Board of Appeal’s non-adjudication on a claim of the appellant which was debated before the Board of Appeal.

The fifth sub-ground alleges infringement of Article 64 of Regulation (EC) 207/2009, in so far as the judgment under appeal found that, whilst the issue of the actual use of the earlier mark was not specifically raised before the Board of Appeal, that issue does not constitute a point of law which must necessarily be examined by that Board of Appeal in order to reach a decision in the case before it.

The sixth sub-ground alleges infringement of Articles 64 and 60 of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 and Rule 49(1) of Regulation 2868/95 (2) in that the General Court applied to the present case the case-law relating to those two articles, which govern the admissibility of appeals before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, when, in the present case, the appeal had not been declared inadmissible by the Board of Appeal and, even if it had been, that finding would have infringed those articles, since the written pleadings submitted by the appellant were not declared inadmissible.

The
  second ground of appeal
  is brought against the ground of the judgment under appeal dismissing in part the third plea in law before the General Court alleging that the decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO infringed Article 8 of Regulation (EC) 207/2009, and is divided into two sub-grounds.

The first sub-ground alleges infringement of Article 36 of Statute of the Court of Justice and of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, on the ground that the judgment under appeal failed to state reasons by not explaining the significance which it decided to attach to the findings in the decisions of the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO on the goods in respect of which the earlier trade mark was to be considered registered. It is also alleged that those findings were distorted when the significance which the judgment under appeal attached to the findings in those decisions is contrasted with the arguments of the parties and the organisation of procedure.

The second sub-ground alleges infringement of Article 8 of Regulation 207/2009 in so far as the judgment under appeal finds that the services in Class 42 of the trade mark at issue and the goods in respect of which the earlier trade mark has been considered registered are similar.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 29 August 2018 — IK

(Case C-551/18 PPU)

(2019/C 16/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: IK

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient that, in the EAW, an issuing judicial authority mentions only the executable custodial sentence imposed and thus not the legal consequence imposed for the same offence and by the same judicial decision, such as the TBS, which will give rise to actual deprivation of liberty only after the execution of the main custodial sentence and only after an exceptional decision to that effect is taken by the sentencing court? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient that, in the EAW, an issuing judicial authority mentions only the executable custodial sentence imposed and thus not the legal consequence imposed for the same offence and by the same judicial decision, such as the TBS, which will give rise to actual deprivation of liberty only after the execution of the main custodial sentence and only after an exceptional decision to that effect is taken by the sentencing court?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that the surrender by the Member State of the issuing judicial authority on the basis of an EAW that refers only to the executable custodial sentence imposed and thus not to the legal consequence of the TBS imposed, which has been imposed for the same offence and by the same judicial decision, has the result that actual deprivation of liberty in execution of that legal consequence may be effected in the Member State of the issuing judicial authority? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that the surrender by the Member State of the issuing judicial authority on the basis of an EAW that refers only to the executable custodial sentence imposed and thus not to the legal consequence of the TBS imposed, which has been imposed for the same offence and by the same judicial decision, has the result that actual deprivation of liberty in execution of that legal consequence may be effected in the Member State of the issuing judicial authority?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the negative, must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that the issuing judicial authority’s failure to mention in the EAW the legal consequence of the TBS imposed has the result that the legal consequence imposed, of which the issuing judicial authority can be assumed not to have any knowledge, cannot give rise to actual deprivation of liberty in the issuing Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative, must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that the issuing judicial authority’s failure to mention in the EAW the legal consequence of the TBS imposed has the result that the legal consequence imposed, of which the issuing judicial authority can be assumed not to have any knowledge, cannot give rise to actual deprivation of liberty in the issuing Member State?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA) (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/29

---

Appeal brought on 11 September 2018 by Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2018 in Case T-643/13, Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH v European Commission

(Case C-568/18 P)

(2019/C 16/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and D. Jacob, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 in Case T-643/13; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 in Case T-643/13;

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 15 September 2013 with reference GestDem 2013/1504; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 15 September 2013 with reference GestDem 2013/1504;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the General Court’s judgment and refer the matter back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the General Court’s judgment and refer the matter back to the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

| 1. | The General Court misconstrued the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) for a refusal to grant free access to environmental information. It interpreted too broadly the ground for refusal set out in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (2) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, in the light of the Aarhus Convention guidelines. The General Court erred in law in assuming that information on the CO2 efficiency of an industrial plant was commercially sensitive information. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court misconstrued the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) for a refusal to grant free access to environmental information. It interpreted too broadly the ground for refusal set out in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (2) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, in the light of the Aarhus Convention guidelines. The General Court erred in law in assuming that information on the CO2 efficiency of an industrial plant was commercially sensitive information.

| 2. | The General Court infringed Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by failing to recognise the existence of environmental information on emissions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court infringed Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by failing to recognise the existence of environmental information on emissions.

| 3. | Furthermore, the General Court also failed to take sufficient account of the overwhelming public interest in access to the environmental information at issue, as demonstrated by the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Furthermore, the General Court also failed to take sufficient account of the overwhelming public interest in access to the environmental information at issue, as demonstrated by the appellant.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13.

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

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2018 — F. v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

(Case C-656/18)

(2019/C 16/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Erding

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F.

Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 7 November 2018.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/30

---

Action brought on 30 October 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-676/18)

(2019/C 16/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, C. Cattabriga and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt, by 30 September 2016, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such laws, regulations and provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt, by 30 September 2016, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such laws, regulations and provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) of that directive;

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a periodic penalty payment of EUR 49 906,50 per day into an account to be notified by the Commission from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil the obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/36/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a periodic penalty payment of EUR 49 906,50 per day into an account to be notified by the Commission from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil the obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/36/EU;

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

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Member States were required, under Article 28(1) of Directive 2014/36/EU, to take the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations of that directive by 30 September 2016. In the absence of notification of any measures transposing the directive by Belgium, the Commission has decided to bring an action before the Court of Justice.

In its application, the Commission proposes that a daily periodic penalty payment of EUR 49 906,50 be imposed on Belgium. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated by taking into account the seriousness and length of the infringement, as well as the dissuasive effect on the basis of that Member State’s ability to pay.

---

(1)  Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 375).

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/31

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 7 November 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v ND

(Case C-685/18)

(2019/C 16/39)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Defendant: ND

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the criteria according to which to decide whether a public prosecutor designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) (1) is a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on [the] European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States that (1) the public prosecutor is independent from the executive and (2) considered in his own legal system to administer justice or participate in the administration of justice? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the criteria according to which to decide whether a public prosecutor designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) (1) is a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on [the] European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States that (1) the public prosecutor is independent from the executive and (2) considered in his own legal system to administer justice or participate in the administration of justice?

| 2. | If not, what are the criteria according to which a national court should determine whether a public prosecutor who is designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision is a judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If not, what are the criteria according to which a national court should determine whether a public prosecutor who is designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision is a judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1)?

| 3. | Insofar as the criteria include a requirement that the public prosecutor administer justice or participate in the administration of justice is that to be determined in accordance with the status he holds in his own legal system or in accordance with certain objective criteria? If, objective criteria what are those criteria? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Insofar as the criteria include a requirement that the public prosecutor administer justice or participate in the administration of justice is that to be determined in accordance with the status he holds in his own legal system or in accordance with certain objective criteria? If, objective criteria what are those criteria?

| 4. | Is the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Lithuania a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on [the] European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Lithuania a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on [the] European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States?

---

(1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1).

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/32

---

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des fabricants de cigares, Coprova, E-Labo France, Smakq développement v Premier ministre, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, interveners: Société J. Cortès France, Scandinavian Tobacco Group France, Villiger France

(Case C-288/17) (1)

(2019/C 16/40)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Stefan Neldner v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-299/18) (1)

(2019/C 16/41)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---

General Court

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — PKK v Council

(Case T-316/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures imposed on the PKK with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Powers of the Council - Whether an authority of a third State can be classified as a competent authority within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Reference to terrorist acts - Judicial review - Obligation to state reasons - Plea of illegality))

(2019/C 16/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) (represented by: A. van Eik, T. Buruma and M. Wijngaarden, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by F. Naert and G. Étienne, and subsequently by F. Naert and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially by C. Brodie and V. Kaye, subsequently by C. Brodie and S. Brandon, subsequently by C. Brodie, C. Crane and R. Fadoju, subsequently by C. Brodie, R. Fadoju and P. Nevill, and then by R. Fadoju, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: initially by F. Castillo de la Torre and D. Gauci, subsequently by D. Gauci, J. Norris-Usher and T. Ramopoulos, and then by J. Norris-Usher, T. Ramopoulos and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking, initially, the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 of 10 February 2014 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 714/2013 (OJ 2014 L 40, p. 9), in so far as that act concerns the applicant, and, subsequently, the annulment of other consequential acts, in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 of 10 February 2014 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 714/2013, in so far as it concerns the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 of 10 February 2014 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 714/2013, in so far as it concerns the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

| 2. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 790/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation No 125/2014, in so far as it concerns the PKK. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 790/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation No 125/2014, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

| 3. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513 of 26 March 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation No 790/2014, in so far as it concerns the PKK. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513 of 26 March 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation No 790/2014, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

| 4. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/521 of 26 March 2015, updating and amending the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Decision 2014/483/CFSP, in so far as it concerns the PKK. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/521 of 26 March 2015, updating and amending the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Decision 2014/483/CFSP, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

| 5. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1325 of 31 July 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation 2015/513, in so far as it concerns the PKK. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1325 of 31 July 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation 2015/513, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

| 6. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1334 of 31 July 2015, updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Decision 2015/521, in so far as it concerns the PKK. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1334 of 31 July 2015, updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Decision 2015/521, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

| 7. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2425 of 21 December 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation 2015/1325, in so far as it concerns the PKK. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2425 of 21 December 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation 2015/1325, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

| 8. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1127 of 12 July 2016 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation 2015/2425, in so far as it concerns the PKK. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1127 of 12 July 2016 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation 2015/2425, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

| 9. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/150 of 27 January 2017 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation No 2016/1127, in so far as it concerns the PKK. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/150 of 27 January 2017 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation No 2016/1127, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

| 10. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420 of 4 August 2017 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation 2017/150, in so far as it concerns the PKK. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420 of 4 August 2017 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation 2017/150, in so far as it concerns the PKK.

| 11. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1426 of 4 August 2017 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2017/154, in so far as it concerns the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1426 of 4 August 2017 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2017/154, in so far as it concerns the applicant.

| 12. | For the remainder, dismisses the request that Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism be declared to be inapplicable to the PKK. |
| --- | --- |

12.

For the remainder, dismisses the request that Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism be declared to be inapplicable to the PKK.

| 13. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the PKK. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the PKK.

| 14. | Orders the European Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Orders the European Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission

(Case T-793/14) (1)

((State aid - United Kingdom capacity market - Aid scheme - Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU - Concept of doubts within the meaning of Article 4(3) or (4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Decision not to raise any objections - No initiation of the formal investigation procedure - Procedural rights of interested parties))

(2019/C 16/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Tempus Energy Ltd (Worcester, United Kingdom) and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd (Cheltenham, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially J. Derenne, J. Blockx, C. Ziegler and M. Kinsella, subsequently J. Derenne, J. Blockx and C. Ziegler, and finally J. Derenne and C. Ziegler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, R. Sauer, K. Herrmann and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially C. Brodie and L. Christie, acting as Agents, and G. Facenna QC, subsequently S. Simmons, M. Holt, C. Brodie and S. Brandon, acting as Agents, and G. Facenna QC, subsequently M. Holt, C. Brodie, S. Brandon and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and G. Facenna QC, and finally S. Brandon, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5083 final of 23 July 2014 not to raise objections to the aid scheme for the capacity market in the United Kingdom, on the ground that that scheme is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (State aid 2014/N-2) (OJ 2014 C 348, p. 5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 5083 final of 23 July 2014 not to raise objections to the aid scheme for the capacity market in the United Kingdom, on the ground that that scheme is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (State aid 2014/N-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 5083 final of 23 July 2014 not to raise objections to the aid scheme for the capacity market in the United Kingdom, on the ground that that scheme is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (State aid 2014/N-2);

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Tempus Energy Ltd and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Tempus Energy Ltd and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd;

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

3.

Orders the United Kingdom to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Psara and Others v Parliament

(Case T-639/15 to T-666/15 and T-94/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - European Parliament - Expenditure by Members of the Parliament of their allowances - Refusal to grant access - Non-existent documents - Personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Need to transfer the data - Specific and individual examination - Partial access - Excessive administrative burden - Obligation to state reasons))

(2019/C 16/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant in Case T-639/15: Maria Psara (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-640/15: Tina Kristan (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-641/15: Tanja Malle (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-642/15: Wojciech Cieśla (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-643/15: Staffan Dahllof (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-644/15: Delphine Reuter (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Cases T-645/15 and T-654/15: České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku o.p.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-646/15: Harry Karanikas (Chalándri, Greece) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Cases T-647/15 and T-657/15: Crina Boros (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Cases T-648/15, T-663/15 and T-665/15: Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-649/15: Balazs Toth (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-650/15: Minna Knus-Galán (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-651/15: Atanas Tchobanov (Plessis-Robinson, France) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-652/15: Dirk Liedtke (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-653/15: Nils Mulvad (Risskov, Denmark) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-655/15: Hugo van der Parre (Huizen, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-656/15: Guia Baggi (Florence, Italy) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-658/15: Marcos García Rey (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-659/15: Mark Lee Hunter (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-660/15: Kristof Clerix (Brussels) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-661/15: Rui Araujo (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-662/15: Anuška Delić (Ljubljana) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-664/15: Jacob Borg (St Julian’s, Malta) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-666/15: Matilda Bačelić (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-94/16: Gavin Sheridan (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, C. Burgos and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decisions A(2015) 8324 C, A(2015) 8463 C, A(2015) 8627 C, A(2015) 8682 C, A(2015) 8594 C, A(2015) 8551 C, A(2015) 8732 C, A(2015) 8681 C, A(2015) 8334 C, A(2015) 8327 C and A(2015) 8344 C of 14 September 2015, A(2015) 8656 C, A(2015) 8678 C, A(2015) 8361 C, A(2015) 8663 C, A(2015) 8360 C, A(2015) 8486 C and A(2015) 8305 C of 15 September 2015, A(2015) 8602 C, A(2015) 8554 C, A(2015) 8490 C, A(2015) 8659 C, A(2015) 8547 C, A(2015) 8552 C, A(2015) 8553 C, A(2015) 8661 C, A(2015) 8684 C and A(2015) 8672 C of 16 September 2015, and A(2015) 13844 C of 14 January 2016 of the European Parliament, by which the Parliament rejected, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), the applicants’ confirmatory applications for access to Parliament documents containing information on the allowances of its members.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the joinder of Cases T-639/15 to T-666/15 and T-94/16 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the joinder of Cases T-639/15 to T-666/15 and T-94/16 for the purposes of the judgment;

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

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders Ms Maria Psara, Ms Tina Kristan, Ms Tanja Malle, Mr Wojciech Cieśla, Mr Staffan Dahllof, Ms Delphine Reuter, České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku o.p.s., Mr Harry Karanikas, Ms Crina Boros, Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica, Mr Balazs Toth, Ms Minna Knus-Galán, Mr Atanas Tchobanov, Mr Dirk Liedtke, Mr Nils Mulvad, Mr Hugo van der Parre, Ms Guia Baggi, Mr Marcos García Rey, Mr Mark Lee Hunter, Mr Kristof Clerix, Mr Rui Araujo, Ms Anuška Delić, Mr Jacob Borg, Ms Matilda Bačelić and Mr Gavin Sheridan to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ms Maria Psara, Ms Tina Kristan, Ms Tanja Malle, Mr Wojciech Cieśla, Mr Staffan Dahllof, Ms Delphine Reuter, České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku o.p.s., Mr Harry Karanikas, Ms Crina Boros, Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica, Mr Balazs Toth, Ms Minna Knus-Galán, Mr Atanas Tchobanov, Mr Dirk Liedtke, Mr Nils Mulvad, Mr Hugo van der Parre, Ms Guia Baggi, Mr Marcos García Rey, Mr Mark Lee Hunter, Mr Kristof Clerix, Mr Rui Araujo, Ms Anuška Delić, Mr Jacob Borg, Ms Matilda Bačelić and Mr Gavin Sheridan to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Mad Dogg Athletics v EUIPO — Aerospinning Master Franchising (SPINNING)

(Case T-718/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark SPINNING - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 16/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: J. Steinberg, lawyer)

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, intervener before the General Court: Aerospinning Master Franchising, s.r.o., formerly Aerospinning Master Franchising, Ltd., s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Labalestra, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 (Case R 2375/2014-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Aerospinning Master Franchising and Mad Dogg Athletics.

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 21 July 2016 (Case R 2375/2014-5) in so far as it concerns the goods in Class 28 and the services in Class 41 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; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 July 2016 (Case R 2375/2014-5) in so far as it concerns the goods in Class 28 and the services in Class 41 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;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc.;

| 3. | Orders Aerospinning Master Franchising, s.r.o. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Aerospinning Master Franchising, s.r.o. to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Cocchi and Falcione v Commission

(Case T-724/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Transfer of national pension rights - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of the European Union to provide assistance - Loss of interest of the applicants in bringing proceedings during the course of the proceedings - No need to adjudicate at first instance - Causation))

(2019/C 16/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Giorgio Cocchi (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) and Nicola Falcione (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (F-134/11, EU:F:2016:194), seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (F-134/11) inasmuch as the European Union Civil Service Tribunal held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims for damages submitted by Mr Giorgio Cocchi and Ms Nicola Falcione at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (F-134/11) inasmuch as the European Union Civil Service Tribunal held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims for damages submitted by Mr Giorgio Cocchi and Ms Nicola Falcione at first instance;

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

2.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 3. | Dismisses the claims for damages submitted by Mr Cocchi and Ms Falcione in their actions at first instance under case number F-134/11; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the claims for damages submitted by Mr Cocchi and Ms Falcione in their actions at first instance under case number F-134/11;

| 4. | Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance so far as the claims for damages are concerned. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance so far as the claims for damages are concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — QB v ECB

(Case T-827/16) (1)

((Civil service - ECB staff - Appraisal exercise - Staff report [2015] - Possibility of being accompanied by a union representative during the appraisal interview - Infringement of the guidelines on objectivity and impartiality on the part of the assessor - Remuneration - Decision refusing the benefit of a salary progression - Admissibility of evidence - Email exchanged between a member of staff and that person’s ‘coach’ using a work email account - Liability))

(2019/C 16/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and B. Ehlers, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the EU Treaty and the FEU Treaty, seeking (i) annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2015 and the ECB decision of 15 December 2015 refusing the applicant the benefit of a salary progression and, in so far as is necessary, annulment of the ECB decisions of 2 May and 15 September 2016 rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal and claim respectively; and (ii) damages in respect of the non-pecuniary harm which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls QB’s staff report for 2015 and the European Central Bank (ECB) decision of 15 December 2015 refusing QB the benefit of a salary progression; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls QB’s staff report for 2015 and the European Central Bank (ECB) decision of 15 December 2015 refusing QB the benefit of a salary progression;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the ECB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by QB. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the ECB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by QB.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA)

(Case T-44/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark CAMOMILLA - Earlier national figurative mark CAMOMILLA - Rejection in part of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Evidence - Counterclaim - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 16/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Camomilla Srl (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Mussi and H. Chiappetta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi, V. Jandoli, A. Stein and G. Rubino, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 2250/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between CMT and Camomilla.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Dismisses the counterclaim; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the counterclaim;

| 3. | Orders Camomilla Srl and CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT) each to bear their own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Camomilla Srl and CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT) each to bear their own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Mabrouk v Council

(Case T-216/17) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of State funds and associated persons and entities - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Insufficient factual basis - Manifest error of assessment - Error of law - Principle of good administration - Reasonable time))

(2019/C 16/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mohamed Marouen Ben Ali Ben Mohamed Mabrouk (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented by: J.-R. Farthouat, N. Boulay and S. Crosby, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and J. Kneale, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/153 of 27 January 2017 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2017 L 23, p. 19), and Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/141 of 29 January 2018 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2018 L 25, p. 38), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Mohamed Marouen Ben Ali Ben Mohamed Mabrouk to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Mohamed Marouen Ben Ali Ben Mohamed Mabrouk to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-241/17) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 - Temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector following a deadly enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (E. coli) outbreak - Non-harvesting operations - Extent of the compensation in favour of producers who performed such operations - Expenditure incurred by Poland - Obligation to state reasons))

(2019/C 16/50)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Pawlicka, K. Straś and B. Paziewska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/264 of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017 L 39, p. 12), in so far as it excludes from European Union financing expenditure in the amount of EUR 4 438 056,66 incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — ‘Pro NGO!’ v Commission

(Case T-454/17) (1)

((Public procurement - Tendering procedure - Investigation by an external auditor - OLAF investigation - Finding of irregularities - Commission decision imposing an administrative penalty on the applicant - Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures financed by the general budget of the European Union for a period of six months - Registration in the Early Detection and Exclusion System database - New plea in law - Right of defence))

(2019/C 16/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant:‘Pro NGO!’ (Non-Governmental-Organisations/Nicht-Regierungs-Organisationen) e.V. (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Scheid, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 16 May 2017 imposing the administrative penalty of exclusion of the applicant for a period of six months from procurement and grant award procedures financed by the general budget of the European Union and laid down in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1) and the exclusion of the applicant for the same period from the grant of funds laid down in Council Regulation (EU) 2015/323 of 2 March 2015 on the financial regulation applicable to the 11th European Development Fund (OJ 2015 L 58, p. 17).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ‘Pro NGO!’ (Non-Governmental-Organisations/Nicht-Regierungs-Organisationen) e.V. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ‘Pro NGO!’ (Non-Governmental-Organisations/Nicht-Regierungs-Organisationen) e.V. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Foodterapia v EUIPO — Sperlari (DIETOX)

(Case T-486/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark DIETOX - Earlier EU figurative mark Dietor - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 16/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foodterapia, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.C. Erdozain López, J. Galán López and H. Tellez Robledo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sperlari Srl, formerly Cloetta Italia Srl (Cremona, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2017 (Case R 1611/2016-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Cloetta Italia and Foodterapia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Foodterapia, SL, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Sperlari Srl, including the costs necessarily incurred by the latter’s legal predecessor before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Foodterapia, SL, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Sperlari Srl, including the costs necessarily incurred by the latter’s legal predecessor before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 –Szentes v Commission

(Case T-830/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Competition notice - Open competition - Admission conditions - Professional experience - Selection board’s decision not to allow the applicant to sit the competition - Request for review - Plea of illegality - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of information in the application form - Manifest error of assessment - Breach of the notice of competition))

(2019/C 16/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gyula Szentes (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Mihaylova and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of the decision of the chair of the selection board for Competition EPSO/AD/330/16 — Nuclear safeguards inspectors (AD 7) of 24 February 2017 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of that competition and, second, as far as necessary, of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 29 September 2017 rejecting his complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Gyula Szentes to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Gyula Szentes to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — LMP Lichttechnik v EUIPO (LITECRAFT)

(Case T-140/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark LITECRAFT - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 16/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH (Ibbenbüren, Germany) (represented by: R. Plegge, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2018 (Case R 699/2017-2) relating to an application for registration of the word sign LITECRAFT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/45

---

Order of the General Court of 17 September 2018 — H v Council

(Case T-271/10 OST) (1)

((Procedure - Failure to adjudicate on costs))

(2019/C 16/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: H (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to remedy a failure to adjudicate on costs in the judgment of 11 April 2018, H v Council (T-271/10 RENV, EU:T:2018:180).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Paragraph 174 of the judgment of 11 April 2018, H v Council (T-271/10 RENV, EU:T:2018:180), is amended as follows:
  ‘Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Nevertheless, in accordance with Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 219 of those rules, a decision as to all the costs relating to the appeal proceedings and the proceedings initiated before the General Court is to be given in the judgment which closes the proceedings. Furthermore, Article 134(3) of those rules provides that the parties are to bear their own costs where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads. However, if it appears justified in the circumstances of the case, the General Court may order that one party, in addition to bearing his own costs, pay a proportion of the costs of the other party. In the circumstances of the present case, it is appropriate to order the Council to bear the costs incurred by the applicant and itself up to the time of delivery of the judgment on appeal, only in so far as they relate to the question of the admissibility of the action, and to order the applicant to bear all the other costs incurred by the Council and herself both before and after that judgment was delivered.’ |
| --- | --- |

1.

Paragraph 174 of the judgment of 11 April 2018, H v Council (T-271/10 RENV, EU:T:2018:180), is amended as follows:

‘Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Nevertheless, in accordance with Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 219 of those rules, a decision as to all the costs relating to the appeal proceedings and the proceedings initiated before the General Court is to be given in the judgment which closes the proceedings. Furthermore, Article 134(3) of those rules provides that the parties are to bear their own costs where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads. However, if it appears justified in the circumstances of the case, the General Court may order that one party, in addition to bearing his own costs, pay a proportion of the costs of the other party. In the circumstances of the present case, it is appropriate to order the Council to bear the costs incurred by the applicant and itself up to the time of delivery of the judgment on appeal, only in so far as they relate to the question of the admissibility of the action, and to order the applicant to bear all the other costs incurred by the Council and herself both before and after that judgment was delivered.’

| 2. | Paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of 11 April 2018, H v Council (T-271/10 RENV, EU:T:2018:180), is amended as follows:
  ‘The Council shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by H up to the time of delivery of the judgment of 19 July 2016, H v Council and Commission(C-455/14 P, EU:C:2016:569), only in so far as they relate to the question of the admissibility of the action. H shall bear all the other costs incurred by the Council and herself both before and after that judgment was delivered.’ |
| --- | --- |

2.

Paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of 11 April 2018, H v Council (T-271/10 RENV, EU:T:2018:180), is amended as follows:

‘The Council shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by H up to the time of delivery of the judgment of 19 July 2016, H v Council and Commission(C-455/14 P, EU:C:2016:569), only in so far as they relate to the question of the admissibility of the action. H shall bear all the other costs incurred by the Council and herself both before and after that judgment was delivered.’

| 3. | H and the Council shall bear their own costs in relation to the present application. |
| --- | --- |

3.

H and the Council shall bear their own costs in relation to the present application.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/46

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 12 October 2018 — Taminco v EFSA

(Case T-621/17 R)

((Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Publication of the conclusion of the examination carried out by EFSA on the review of the approval of the active substance thiram - Claim for confidential treatment of certain sections - Refusal to grant confidentiality - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency))

(2019/C 16/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Taminco BVBA (Ghent, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents, and by R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Koleva and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of the decision of EFSA of 18 July 2017 rejecting the claims for confidential treatment made in the context of the application for the renewal of the approval of the active substance thiram.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 19 September 2017 delivered in Case T-621/17 R is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 19 September 2017 delivered in Case T-621/17 R is cancelled.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/46

---

Action brought on 10 October 2018 — FT v ESMA

(Case T-625/18)

(2019/C 16/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FT (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision ESMA41-137-1154 of the Executive Director of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) of 9 August 2018 with which ESMA requests the recovery of the amount of EUR 12 000, in relation to the costs incurred by ESMA in Case F-39/14; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision ESMA41-137-1154 of the Executive Director of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) of 9 August 2018 with which ESMA requests the recovery of the amount of EUR 12 000, in relation to the costs incurred by ESMA in Case F-39/14;

| — | annul the related debit note No 4440180170 of 10 August 2018 issued by ESMA; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the related debit note No 4440180170 of 10 August 2018 issued by ESMA;

| — | order ESMA to bear its own costs and those of the applicant in the current proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order ESMA to bear its own costs and those of the applicant in the current proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 98 of the Financial Regulation, (1) Article 60 of the ESMA Financial Regulation, (2) Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, as well as the principle of equality of arms of the parties of a dispute, as the amount allegedly owed by the applicant and stipulated in the contested acts had not been determined in accordance with the said Article 170 by the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 98 of the Financial Regulation, (1) Article 60 of the ESMA Financial Regulation, (2) Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, as well as the principle of equality of arms of the parties of a dispute, as the amount allegedly owed by the applicant and stipulated in the contested acts had not been determined in accordance with the said Article 170 by the General Court.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the costs claimed by the defendant are non-recoverable, as it exceeded the reasonable time for making such requests. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the costs claimed by the defendant are non-recoverable, as it exceeded the reasonable time for making such requests.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of appreciation by the defendant of the debt owed by the applicant, as the amount claimed of EUR 12 000 is exorbitant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of appreciation by the defendant of the debt owed by the applicant, as the amount claimed of EUR 12 000 is exorbitant.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

(2)  Decision of the Management Board on the Financial Regulation of the European Securities and Markets

Authority ESMA/2014/MB/38.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/47

---

Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Industrial Química del Nalón v Commission

(Case T-635/18)

(2019/C 16/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Industrial Química del Nalón, SA (Oviedo, Spain) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, R. Crespi and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | compensate the applicant for the damage caused by the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the applicant for the damage caused by the defendant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence of adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 833 628,00 EUR or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence of adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 833 628,00 EUR or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court;

| — | in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce within the same period, their submission with detailed figures in support; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce within the same period, their submission with detailed figures in support;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised);

| — | order the defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the judgment until actual payment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the judgment until actual payment; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay all costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant caused damage to the applicant by the adoption and entry into force of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, (1) classifying the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance. On 22 November 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal of the European Commission against the decision of the General Court to partially annul Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 insofar as it classified the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) due to a manifest error of assessment. The applicant incurred in costs to apply the unlawful classification. The defendant would be responsible for those costs pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU since the conduct of the defendant is unlawful in that it amounts to a sufficiently serious breach of law, the damage caused is actual and certain and there is a direct causal link between the conduct of the defendant and the damage relied upon.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ L 261, 3.10.2013, p. 5).

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/48

---

Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Tokai erftcarbon v Commission

(Case T-636/18)

(2019/C 16/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tokai erftcarbon GmbH (Grevenbroich, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, R. Crespi and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | compensate the applicant for the damage caused to it by the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the applicant for the damage caused to it by the defendant;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence of adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 66 236,74 EUR, or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence of adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 66 236,74 EUR, or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court;

| — | in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce within the same period their submissions with detailed figures in support; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce within the same period their submissions with detailed figures in support;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised);

| — | order defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the judgment until actual payment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the judgment until actual payment; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging that the defendant caused damage to the applicant by the adoption and entry into force of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, (1) classifying the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance. On 22 November 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal of the European Commission against the decision of the General Court to partially annul Regulation No 944/2013 insofar as it classified the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance due to a manifest error of assessment. The applicant incurred in costs to apply the unlawful classification. The defendant would have been responsible for those costs pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU since the conduct of the defendant is unlawful in that it amounts to a sufficiently serious breach of law, the damage caused is actual and certain and there is a direct causal link between the conduct and the damage relied upon.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ L 261, 3.10.2013, p. 5).

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/49

---

Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Bawtry Carbon International v Commission

(Case T-637/18)

(2019/C 16/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bawtry Carbon International Ltd (Doncaster, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, R. Crespi and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | compensate the applicant for the damage caused by the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the applicant for the damage caused by the defendant;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence of adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 194 200,06 EUR, or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence of adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 194 200,06 EUR, or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court;

| — | in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their submissions with detailed figures in support; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their submissions with detailed figures in support;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised);

| — | order the defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the Court’s judgment until actual payment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the Court’s judgment until actual payment; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging that the defendant caused damage to the applicant by the adoption and entry into force of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, (1) classifying the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance. On 22 November 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal of the European Commission against the decision of the General Court to partially annul Regulation No 944/2013 insofar as it classified the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance due to a manifest error of assessment. The applicant incurred in costs to apply the unlawful classification. The defendant would have been responsible for those costs pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU since the conduct of the defendant is unlawful in that it amounts to a sufficiently serious breach of law, the damage caused is actual and certain and there is a direct causal link between the conduct and the damage relied upon.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ L 261, 3.10.2013, p. 5).

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/50

---

Action brought on 23 October2018 — Deza v Commission

(Case T-638/18)

(2019/C 16/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, R. Crespi and S Saez Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | compensate the applicant for the damage caused to it by the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the applicant for the damage caused to it by the defendant;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence of adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 4 784 000,00 CZK, or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence of adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 4 784 000,00 CZK, or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court;

| — | in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their submissions with detailed figures in support; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their submissions with detailed figures in support;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised);

| — | order the defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the Court’s judgment until actual payment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the Court’s judgment until actual payment; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay all costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant caused damage to the applicant by the adoption and entry into force of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, (1) classifying the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance. On 22 November 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal of the European Commission against the decision of the General Court to partially annul Regulation No 944/2013 insofar as it classified the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) due to a manifest error of assessment. The applicant incurred in costs to apply the unlawful classification. The defendant would be responsible for those costs pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU since the conduct of the defendant is unlawful in that it amounts to a sufficiently serious breach of law, the damage caused is actual and certain and there is a direct causal link between the conduct of the defendant and the damage relied upon.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ L 261, 3.10.2013, p. 5).

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/51

---

Action brought on 23 October 2018 — SGL Carbon v Commission

(Case T-639/18)

(2019/C 16/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SGL Carbon SE (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, R. Crespi and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 1 022 172,00 EUR, or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 1 022 172,00 EUR, or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court;

| — | in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their submissions with detailed figures in support; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their submissions with detailed figures in support;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised);

| — | order the defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the Court’s judgment until actual payment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the Court’s judgment until actual payment; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay all costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant caused damage to the applicant by the adoption and entry into force of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, (1) classifying the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance. On 22 November 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal of the European Commission against the decision of the General Court to partially annul Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 insofar as it classified the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance due to a manifest error of assessment. The applicant incurred in costs to apply the unlawful classification. The defendant would be responsible for those costs pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU since the conduct of the defendant is unlawful in that it amounts to a sufficiently serious breach of law, the damage caused is actual and certain and there is a direct causal link between the conduct of the defendant and the damage relied upon.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ L 261, 3.10.2013, p. 5).

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/52

---

Action brought on 29 October 2018 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes)

(Case T-643/18)

(2019/C 16/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Faes Farma, SA (Lamiaco-Leioa, Spain)

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 DermoFaes — Application for registration No 15 069 289

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2018 in Case R 1842/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the opposition and reject the contested application; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the opposition and reject the contested application;

| — | order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/53

---

Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Bilbaína de Alquitranes v Commission

(Case T-645/18)

(2019/C 16/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA (Luchana-Baracaldo, Vizcaya, Spain) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, R. Crespi and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | compensate the applicant for the damage caused to it by the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the applicant for the damage caused to it by the defendant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence of adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 488 871,30 EUR or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence of adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 488 871,30 EUR or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court;

| — | in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their submission with detailed figures in support; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their submission with detailed figures in support;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised);

| — | order the defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the Court’s judgment until actual payment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the Court’s judgment until actual payment; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay all costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant caused damage to the applicant by the adoption and entry into force of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, (1) classifying the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance. On 22 November 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal of the European Commission against the decision of the General Court to partially annul Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 insofar as it classified the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) due to a manifest error of assessment. The applicant incurred in costs to apply the unlawful classification. The defendant would be responsible for those costs pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU since the conduct of the defendant is unlawful in that it amounts to a sufficiently serious breach of law, the damage caused is actual and certain and there is a direct causal link between the conduct of the defendant and the damage relied upon.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ L 261, 3.10.2013, p. 5).

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/54

---

Action brought on 29 October 2018 — ZQ v Commission

(Case T-647/18)

(2019/C 16/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZQ (represented by: C. Cortese, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decisions and, in particular:






  (a) | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 15 December 2017, registered in ARES on 18 December 2017, HR.E.2/AS/Ares (2017), concerning ‘Request for assistance D/374/17’ and rejecting that request for assistance; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions and, in particular:

(a)

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 15 December 2017, registered in ARES on 18 December 2017, HR.E.2/AS/Ares (2017), concerning ‘Request for assistance D/374/17’ and rejecting that request for assistance;

| (b) | annul, so far as necessary, the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant, N. R/187/18, HR.E.2/Ares (2018), dated 19 July 2018; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

annul, so far as necessary, the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant, N. R/187/18, HR.E.2/Ares (2018), dated 19 July 2018;

| (c) | order the Commission to pay compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the multiple illegal acts indicated in the contested decision or to which it is closely connected, in the amount of EUR 1 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

order the Commission to pay compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the multiple illegal acts indicated in the contested decision or to which it is closely connected, in the amount of EUR 1 000 000;

in addition,

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present action the applicant challenges the Commission’s rejection of his request for assistance regarding the harassment which he claims to have suffered on account of his sexual orientation.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.






  — | The applicant claims, in this regard, that, from a general point of view, the manifest error of assessment is clear in the predetermined view, expressed in that decision, that the applicant’s assertions are not credible because they relate to a very long period of time during which the applicant did not present any formal complaints. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

—

The applicant claims, in this regard, that, from a general point of view, the manifest error of assessment is clear in the predetermined view, expressed in that decision, that the applicant’s assertions are not credible because they relate to a very long period of time during which the applicant did not present any formal complaints.

| — | The existence of a predetermined view is, moreover, the only explanation for the fact that the appointing authority excluded from the scope of the contested decision a series of reported incidents in respect of which no assessment was carried out. |
| --- | --- |

—

The existence of a predetermined view is, moreover, the only explanation for the fact that the appointing authority excluded from the scope of the contested decision a series of reported incidents in respect of which no assessment was carried out.

| — | The applicant’s allegations concerning the harassment allegedly suffered were hastily downgraded to normal instances of poor organisation or normal conflict in the workplace. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant’s allegations concerning the harassment allegedly suffered were hastily downgraded to normal instances of poor organisation or normal conflict in the workplace.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of law.
  The applicant claims, in this regard:






  (a) | the application of an incorrect definition of harassment, requiring malevolent intent (animus nocendi) on the part of the offending party; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of law.

The applicant claims, in this regard:

(a)

the application of an incorrect definition of harassment, requiring malevolent intent (animus nocendi) on the part of the offending party;

| (b) | the application of a standard of proof not corresponding to that required by the applicable law (prima facie evidence), but rather requiring proof beyond all reasonable doubt establishing the facts and their unambiguous legal classification; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the application of a standard of proof not corresponding to that required by the applicable law (prima facie evidence), but rather requiring proof beyond all reasonable doubt establishing the facts and their unambiguous legal classification;

| (c) | the application of a manifestly incorrect standard of proof as regards the assessment of the credibility of the complaints in relation to the time that has passed; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the application of a manifestly incorrect standard of proof as regards the assessment of the credibility of the complaints in relation to the time that has passed;

| (d) | infringement of the obligation to carry out an investigation automatically in cases where there are credible allegations. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

infringement of the obligation to carry out an investigation automatically in cases where there are credible allegations.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons or inadequacy of the statement of reasons.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that, even where account is taken of the integration of the statement of reasons in the decision rejecting the complaint, the contested decision lacks, to a great extent, an adequate statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons or inadequacy of the statement of reasons.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that, even where account is taken of the integration of the statement of reasons in the decision rejecting the complaint, the contested decision lacks, to a great extent, an adequate statement of reasons.

As regards the head of claim seeking compensation for damage, the applicant submits that all of the conditions imposed by the case-law are satisfied in the present case.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/56

---

Action brought on 22 October 2018 — Super bock group, SGPS v EUIPO — Agus (Crystal)

(Case T-648/18)

(2019/C 16/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Super bock group, SGPS SA (Leça do Balio, Portugal) (represented by: J. Mioludo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agus sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland)

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 Crystal — Application for registration No 15 016 728

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 July 2018 in Case R 299/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | refuse EU Registration No 15 016 728 Crystal for all the covered goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

refuse EU Registration No 15 016 728 Crystal for all the covered goods;

| — | order EUIPO and AGUS sp. z o.o. to bear their own costs and pay those of the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and AGUS sp. z o.o. to bear their own costs and pay those of the appellant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/56

---

Action brought on 29 October 2018 — Reaktor Group v EUIPO (REAKTOR)

(Case T-650/18)

(2019/C 16/67)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Reaktor Group Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the word mark REAKTOR as a European Union trade mark — Application for registration No 13 752 522

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 August 2018 in Case R 2626/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 August 2018 in Case R 2626/2017-2 in so far as the Second Board of Appeal, by the contested decision, dismissed EU trade mark application 13752522 REAKTOR (‘the REAKTOR mark’) for certain goods and services applied for in classes 9, 41 and 42 on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation; and allow the application concerning the REAKTOR mark to be published and registered in its entirety for all the goods and services applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 August 2018 in Case R 2626/2017-2 in so far as the Second Board of Appeal, by the contested decision, dismissed EU trade mark application 13752522 REAKTOR (‘the REAKTOR mark’) for certain goods and services applied for in classes 9, 41 and 42 on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation; and allow the application concerning the REAKTOR mark to be published and registered in its entirety for all the goods and services applied for;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the applicant the costs incurred in respect of the appeal before the General Court of the European Union and the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the applicant the costs incurred in respect of the appeal before the General Court of the European Union and the Board of Appeal;

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/57

---

Action brought on 12 November 2018 — Soundio v EUIPO — E-Plus Mobilfunk (Vibble)

(Case T-665/18)

(2019/C 16/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Soundio A/S (Drammen, Norway) (represented by: N. Köster and J. Albers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: E-Plus Mobilfunk GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark Vibble — International registration designating the European Union No 1 290 194

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2018 in Case R 721/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/58

---

Action brought on 9 November 2018 — Pinto Teixeira v EEAS

(Case T-667/18)

(2019/C 16/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José Manuel Pinto Teixeira (Oeiras, Portugal) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 21 February 2018 by which the Appointing Authority refused to authorise him to engage in an outside activity under Article 16 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 21 February 2018 by which the Appointing Authority refused to authorise him to engage in an outside activity under Article 16 of the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the EEAS to pay the costs and to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 for the non-material damage suffered. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs and to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 for the non-material damage suffered.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the contested decision was adopted after the expiry of the period of 30 working days from the reception of his declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the contested decision was adopted after the expiry of the period of 30 working days from the reception of his declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment which render the contested decision unlawful, since the proposed activity is manifestly neither connected to the activity which he exercised during the last three years of service nor incompatible with the interests of the EEAS. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment which render the contested decision unlawful, since the proposed activity is manifestly neither connected to the activity which he exercised during the last three years of service nor incompatible with the interests of the EEAS.

---

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/58

---

Action brought on 15 November 2018 — ZU v Commission

(Case T-671/18)

(2019/C 16/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Head of the Career Management & Mobility Unit, in Directorate HR.B of Directorate-General Human Resources (DG HR) of the Commission, adopted on 12 October 2018, transferring the applicant back to DG OLAF; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Head of the Career Management & Mobility Unit, in Directorate HR.B of Directorate-General Human Resources (DG HR) of the Commission, adopted on 12 October 2018, transferring the applicant back to DG OLAF;

| — | annul the decision of the Head of the Account Management Centre 4 Unit, in Directorate HR.AMC of DG HR of the Commission, adopted on 29 October 2018, provisionally setting the date of his assignment at 1 December 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Head of the Account Management Centre 4 Unit, in Directorate HR.AMC of DG HR of the Commission, adopted on 29 October 2018, provisionally setting the date of his assignment at 1 December 2018;

| — | annul, together with the above, in so far as necessary, the decision of the appointing authority, yet to be adopted, rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, together with the above, in so far as necessary, the decision of the appointing authority, yet to be adopted, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| — | 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 five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging insufficient transparency of the transfer procedure, breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and failure to state grounds, infringement of the applicant’s right to defence from the enforced transfer, and breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging insufficient transparency of the transfer procedure, breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and failure to state grounds, infringement of the applicant’s right to defence from the enforced transfer, and breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and of the right to be heard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the interest of the service, and breach of the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the interest of the service, and breach of the principle of good administration.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging omission of crucial elements against the immediate transfer of the applicant to OLAF, breach of the principle of good administration, and disregard for the protection of whistle-blowers under Article 22a of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging omission of crucial elements against the immediate transfer of the applicant to OLAF, breach of the principle of good administration, and disregard for the protection of whistle-blowers under Article 22a of the Staff Regulations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.

---