# Official Journal C 328/17 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 328 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6117 September 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 328

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6117 September 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2018/C 328/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2018/C 328/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2018/C 328/02 | Case C-123/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Orange Polska SA v European Commission, Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji, European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA), formerly the European Competitive Telecommunications Association (Appeal — Competition — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of dominant position — Polish wholesale market for fixed broadband internet access — Refusal to give access to the network and to supply wholesale products — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 7(1) — Article 23(2)(a) — Legitimate interest in finding an infringement which has come to an end — Calculation of the fine — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 — Gravity — Mitigating circumstances — Investments made by the infringing undertaking — Review of legality — Review exercising powers of unlimited jurisdiction — Substitution of grounds) | 2 |
| 2018/C 328/03 | Case C-128/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain, Lico Leasing SA, Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión SA (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements for the purchase of ships (Spanish tax lease system) — Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid — Condition relating to selectivity — Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States — Obligation to state reasons) | 3 |
| 2018/C 328/04 | Case C-135/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Scheme for the support of renewable electricity sources and energy-intensive users — Decision (EU) 2015/1585 — Validity in the light of Article 107 TFEU — Admissibility — Failure by the applicants in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment) | 4 |
| 2018/C 328/05 | Case C-528/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment — Mutagenesis — Directive 2001/18/EC — Articles 2 and 3 — Annexes I A and I B — Concept of genetically modified organism — Techniques/methods of genetic modification conventionally used and deemed to be safe — New techniques/methods of mutagenesis — Risks for human health and the environment — Discretion of the Member States when transposing the directive — Directive 2002/53/EC — Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Herbicide-tolerant plant varieties — Article 4 — Acceptability of genetically modified varieties obtained by mutagenesis for inclusion in the common catalogue — Human health and environmental protection requirement — Exemption) | 4 |
| 2018/C 328/06 | Case C-553/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — TTL EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika — Sofia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Corporate taxation — Payments made by a company resident in a Member State to non-resident companies for the leasing of rail tankers — Obligation to charge withholding tax on income from a domestic source paid to a non-resident company — Non-compliance — Double taxation conventions — Charging the resident company default interest for non-payment of the withholding tax — Interest payable from the expiry of the statutory time limit for payment until the date on which evidence that the double taxation convention is applicable is furnished — Irrecoverable interest) | 5 |
| 2018/C 328/07 | Case C-585/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection — Standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection — Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 12 — Exclusion from refugee status — Persons registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) — Existence of a first country of asylum, for a refugee from Palestine, in the UNRWA area of operations — Common procedures for granting international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 46 — Right to an effective remedy — Full and ex nunc examination — Scope of the powers of the court of first instance — Examination by the courts of international protection needs — Examination of grounds of inadmissibility) | 6 |
| 2018/C 328/08 | Case C-632/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV v BSH Home Appliances NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Retail of vacuum cleaners — Energy class label — Directive 2010/30/EU — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 — Vacuum cleaners — Display of other symbols — Unfair commercial practices — Consumer protection — Directive 2005/29/EC — Article 7 — Failure to state the conditions under which energy efficiency is measured — Misleading omission) | 8 |
| 2018/C 328/09 | Case C-679/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Freedom to move and reside in the Member States — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Social assistance — Sickness benefits — Services provided to people with disabilities — Obligation of a municipality in one Member State to provide one of its residents with personal assistance provided for under national legislation while that resident is in higher education in another Member State) | 9 |
| 2018/C 328/10 | Case C-5/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v DPAS Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemption — Article 135(1)(d) — Transactions concerning payments and transfers — Concept — Scope — Dental payment plan by direct debit) | 9 |
| 2018/C 328/11 | Joined Cases C-84/17 P, C-85/17 P and C-95/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-84/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Société des produits Nestlé SA (C-85/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd, Société des produits Nestlé SA (C-95/17 P) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a four-fingered chocolate bar — Appeal directed against the grounds — Inadmissibility — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) — Evidence of distinctive character acquired through use) | 10 |
| 2018/C 328/12 | Case C-96/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Consequences of a disciplinary dismissal found to be unfair — Definition of working conditions — Temporary worker with a contract of indefinite duration — Difference in treatment between permanent workers and temporary workers with a fixed-term contract or contract of indefinite duration — Reinstatement of the worker or granting of compensation) | 11 |
| 2018/C 328/13 | Case C-103/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Messer France SAS, formerly Praxair v Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 92/12/EEC — Article 3(2) — Directive 2003/96/EC — Articles 3 and 18 — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Excise duties — Existence of another indirect tax — Conditions — National legislation providing for a contribution to the public electricity service — Definition of specific purposes — Compliance with a minimum level of taxation) | 12 |
| 2018/C 328/14 | Case C-107/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Aviabaltika UAB v Ūkio bankas AB, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/47/EC — Enforcement of financial collateral arrangements — Commencement of insolvency proceedings against the collateral taker — Occurrence of the enforcement event — Inclusion of the financial collateral in the assets remaining after the insolvency — Obligation to satisfy the claims primarily from the financial collateral) | 13 |
| 2018/C 328/15 | Case C-121/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as Mylan v Gilead Sciences Inc. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) — Originator medicines and generic medicines — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3(a) — Conditions for obtaining — Concept of a product protected by a basic patent in force — Criteria for assessment) | 13 |
| 2018/C 328/16 | Case C-129/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5 — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9 — Trade mark proprietor entitled to oppose removal by a third party of all the signs identical to that trade mark and the affixing of new signs on goods identical to those for which the trade mark has been registered with a view to importing or placing them on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA)) | 14 |
| 2018/C 328/17 | Case C-139/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Microchip Technology, Inc. (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Opposition proceedings — Application for the word mark medialbo — Earlier mark MediaLB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Notice of opposition filed by a person who is not the proprietor of the earlier mark — No formal application for registration of the transfer of the earlier mark within the opposition period — Inadmissibility) | 15 |
| 2018/C 328/18 | Case C-140/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167, 168 and 184 — Deduction of input tax — Adjustment — Immovable property acquired as capital goods — Initial allocation to an activity which does not confer entitlement to deduct input tax and subsequently also to an activity subject to VAT — Public body — Taxable-person status at the time of the taxable transaction) | 15 |
| 2018/C 328/19 | Case C-164/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Edel Grace, Peter Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 6(3) and (4) — Assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site — Plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site — Wind farm project — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Article 4 — Special Protection Area (SPA) — Annex I — Hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) — Suitable habitat fluctuating over time — Temporary or permanent reduction of the amount of appropriate land — Measures included in the project to ensure that, during the lifetime of the project, the amount of land that is in fact suitable for hosting the natural habitat of the species will not be reduced and indeed may be enhanced) | 16 |
| 2018/C 328/20 | Case C-205/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Collection and treatment of urban waste water — Directive 91/271/EEC — Articles 3 and 4 — Judgment of the Court declaring a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Penalty payment and lump sum) | 17 |
| 2018/C 328/21 | Case C-239/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Gert Teglgaard, Fløjstrupgård I/S v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Support schemes for farmers — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Article 6(1) — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 23(1) — Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Article 66(1) — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Article 70(8)(a) — Cross-compliance — Reduction in direct payments due to non-compliance with the statutory management requirements or good agricultural and environmental conditions — Determination of the year to be taken into account in order to determine the percentage reduction — Year in which the non-compliance occurred) | 17 |
| 2018/C 328/22 | Case C-268/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski Sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — Issue of a European arrest warrant against AY (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(2), Article 3(2) and Article 4(3) — Grounds for the refusal to execute — Closure of a criminal investigation — Principle ne bis in idem — Requested person who had the status of a witness in previous proceedings concerning the same acts — Issue of several European arrest warrants against the same person) | 18 |
| 2018/C 328/23 | Case C-338/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo v Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite Fund (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency — Directive 2008/94/EC — Articles 3 and 4 — Employees’ claims borne by guarantee institutions — Limitation on the liability of guarantee institutions — Exclusion of wage claims arising over three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings) | 19 |
| 2018/C 328/24 | Case C-404/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — A v Migrationsverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 31(8) and Article 32(2) — Manifestly unfounded application for international protection — Concept of safe country of origin — No national rules concerning that concept — Applicant’s representations considered to be reliable but insufficient having regard to the satisfactory protection offered by the applicant’s country of origin) | 20 |
| 2018/C 328/25 | Case C-445/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli v Pilato SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Headings 8703, 8704 and 8705 — Hearses) | 20 |
| 2018/C 328/26 | Case C-574/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Combaro SA (Appeal — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 239 — Remission of import duties — Import of linen fabrics from Latvia between 1999 and 2002 — Special situation — Supervision and monitoring obligations — Corruption alleged of the customs authorities — Inauthentic movement certificate — Mutual trust) | 21 |
| 2018/C 328/27 | Case C-588/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — incurred by the Kingdom of Spain — Aid granted in respect of areas with natural handicaps and agri-environment measures in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castile and León) | 21 |
| 2018/C 328/28 | Case C-216/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against LM (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(3) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal) | 22 |
| 2018/C 328/29 | Case C-220/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against ML (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(3) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Grounds for non-execution — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 4 — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Detention conditions in the issuing Member State — Scope of the assessment undertaken by the executing judicial authorities — Existence of a legal remedy in the issuing Member State — Assurance given by the authorities of that Member State) | 23 |
| 2018/C 328/30 | Case C-440/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — GS v Bundeszentalamt für Steuern (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Directive 2011/96/EU — Article 1(2) — Parent company — Holding company — Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company — Exemption — Tax evasion, avoidance or abuse — Presumption) | 24 |
| 2018/C 328/31 | Case C-241/18: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli — Italy) — easyJet Airline Co. Ltd v Regione Campania (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information regarding the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying why an answer to the questions referred is necessary — Manifest inadmissibility) | 24 |
| 2018/C 328/32 | Case C-340/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against EK, AH and CX | 25 |
| 2018/C 328/33 | Case C-360/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2018 — Cargill Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld | 25 |
| 2018/C 328/34 | Case C-374/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 7 June 2018 — UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG, DPD Dynamic Parcel Distribution GmbH & Co. KG, Bundesverband Paket & Expresslogistik e.V. v Deutsche Post AG | 26 |
| 2018/C 328/35 | Case C-388/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2018 — Finanzamt A v B | 27 |
| 2018/C 328/36 | Case C-446/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 9 July 2018 — AGROBET CZ, s.r.o. v Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj | 28 |
| 2018/C 328/37 | Case C-447/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 9 July 2018 — UB v Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava | 28 |
| 2018/C 328/38 | Case C-481/18: Action brought on 23 July 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic | 29 |
| 2018/C 328/39 | Case C-487/18: Action brought on 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria | 29 |
| | General Court |
| 2018/C 328/40 | Case T-58/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Stührk Delikatessen Import v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimp — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law — 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines — Mitigating factors — Substantially limited involvement — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Maximum of 10 % of total turnover — Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Paragraph 37 of the 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons) | 31 |
| 2018/C 328/41 | Case T-419/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Imputability of the infringement — Presumption — Error of assessment — Presumption of innocence — Legal certainty — Principle of personal responsibility — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 31 |
| 2018/C 328/42 | Case T-422/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Viscas v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 32 |
| 2018/C 328/43 | Case T-438/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Concept of an undertaking — Economic succession — Single and continuous infringement — Evidence of the infringement — Public distancing — Duration of participation — Equal treatment — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 33 |
| 2018/C 328/44 | Case T-439/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — LS Cable & System v Commission (Competition — Agreement, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Single and continuous infringement — Sufficient proof — Contributing to the single objective of the infringement — Knowledge of key elements of the infringement — Calculation of the fine — Basic amount — Paragraph 18 of the Guidelines — Gravity of the infringement — Proportionality — Mitigating circumstances — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 33 |
| 2018/C 328/45 | Case T-441/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Brugg Kabel and Kabelwerke Brugg v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 34 |
| 2018/C 328/46 | Case T-444/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Furukawa Electric v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 35 |
| 2018/C 328/47 | Case T-445/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — ABB v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Evidence of the infringement — Products concerned — Public distancing — Duration of participation — Equal treatment) | 35 |
| 2018/C 328/48 | Case T-446/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Taihan Electric Wire v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Insurmountable barriers to entry — Inapplicability of Article 101 — Duration of involvement — Equal treatment — Calculation of the fine — Value of sales — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 36 |
| 2018/C 328/49 | Case T-447/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Evidence of the infringement — Duration of Involvement — Public Distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 37 |
| 2018/C 328/50 | Case T-448/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Hitachi Metals v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 37 |
| 2018/C 328/51 | Case T-449/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Illegal nature of the inspection decision — Reasonable time — Principle of sound administration — Principle of personal responsibility — Joint and several liability for payment of the fine — Sufficient proof of the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 38 |
| 2018/C 328/52 | Case T-450/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Sumitomo Electric Industries and J-Power Systems v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 38 |
| 2018/C 328/53 | Case T-451/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Fujikura v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 39 |
| 2018/C 328/54 | Case T-455/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Pirelli & C. v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Imputability of the infringement — Presumption — Obligation to state reasons — Fundamental rights — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Beneficium ordinis seu excussionis — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 40 |
| 2018/C 328/55 | Case T-475/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Illegal nature of the inspection decision — Reasonable time — Principle of sound administration — Principle of personal responsibility — Joint and several liability for payment of the fine — Sufficient proof of the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 40 |
| 2018/C 328/56 | Case T-606/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Pereira v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Non-promotion — 2015 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 — Obligation to state reasons — Comparative merits — Seniority in the grade — Accumulated merits — Manifest errors of assessment) | 41 |
| 2018/C 328/57 | Case T-608/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PA v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Staff report — 2014 appraisal period — Promotion — 2015 appraisal period — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of power — Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) | 42 |
| 2018/C 328/58 | Case T-745/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BPCE v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions — Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Discretion of the ECB — Errors of law — Manifest error of assessment) | 43 |
| 2018/C 328/59 | Case T-757/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Société générale v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions — Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Discretion of the ECB — Errors of law — Manifest error of assessment) | 44 |
| 2018/C 328/60 | Case T-758/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Crédit agricole v ECB (Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions — Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Discretion of the ECB — Errors of law — Manifest error of assessment) | 45 |
| 2018/C 328/61 | Case T-9/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — RI v Council (Civil service — Officials — Invalidity pension — Fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to recognise the invalidity as arising from an occupational disease — Incorrect view of the concept of occupational disease — Obligation to state reasons) | 45 |
| 2018/C 328/62 | Case T-41/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland (Representation of a koala bear) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark representing koalas — Earlier national three-dimensional mark KOALA-BÄREN Schöller lustige Gebäckfiguren — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Power to alter decisions) | 46 |
| 2018/C 328/63 | Case T-514/15: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Request for access to detailed opinions issued in the course of a notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC — Documents relating to an infringement procedure — Refusal to grant access — Disclosure after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 47 |
| 2018/C 328/64 | Case T-904/16: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions (Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Amicable settlement — Implementation of the agreement — [confidential] — Misuse of powers — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 48 |
| 2018/C 328/65 | Case T-256/17: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Labiri v EESC (Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Amicable settlement — Performance of the agreement — Error in law — Error in assessment — Misuse of powers — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 48 |
| 2018/C 328/66 | Case T-392/17: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — TE v Commission (Action for annulment — Opening of an external investigation by OLAF — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility) | 49 |
| 2018/C 328/67 | Case T-769/17: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — roelliroelli confectionery schweiz v EUIPO — Tanner (ALPRAUSCH) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Declaration of revocation of the opposing trade mark — No need to adjudicate) | 49 |
| 2018/C 328/68 | Case T-783/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — GE Healthcare v Commission (Application for interim measures — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Suspension of the marketing authorisation for contrast agents containing gadolinium for human use — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency) | 50 |
| 2018/C 328/69 | Case T-224/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PV v Commission (Interim measures — Civil Service — Psychological harassment — Decisions taken by the Commission following dismissal — Disciplinary proceedings — Reassignment — Setting the salary at zero — Application for interim measures — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Partial inadmissibility — No prima facie case — No urgency) | 51 |
| 2018/C 328/70 | Case T-250/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — RATP v European Commission (Application for interim measures — Access to documents — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 51 |
| 2018/C 328/71 | Case T-433/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Bax v ECB | 52 |
| 2018/C 328/72 | Case T-439/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Sintokogio v EUIPO (ProAssist) | 53 |
| 2018/C 328/73 | Case T-460/18: Action brought on 26 July 2018 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission | 53 |
| 2018/C 328/74 | Case T-464/18: Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO — Rubio Snacks (Tia Rosa) | 54 |
| 2018/C 328/75 | Case T-468/18: Action brought on 31 July 2018 — NSC Holding v EUIPO — Ibercondor Barcelona (CONDOR SERVICE, NSC) | 55 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2018/C 328/02

Case C-123/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Orange Polska SA v European Commission, Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji, European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA), formerly the European Competitive Telecommunications Association (Appeal — Competition — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of dominant position — Polish wholesale market for fixed broadband internet access — Refusal to give access to the network and to supply wholesale products — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 7(1) — Article 23(2)(a) — Legitimate interest in finding an infringement which has come to an end — Calculation of the fine — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 — Gravity — Mitigating circumstances — Investments made by the infringing undertaking — Review of legality — Review exercising powers of unlimited jurisdiction — Substitution of grounds)

2

2018/C 328/03

Case C-128/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain, Lico Leasing SA, Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión SA (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements for the purchase of ships (Spanish tax lease system) — Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid — Condition relating to selectivity — Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States — Obligation to state reasons)

3

2018/C 328/04

Case C-135/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Scheme for the support of renewable electricity sources and energy-intensive users — Decision (EU) 2015/1585 — Validity in the light of Article 107 TFEU — Admissibility — Failure by the applicants in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment)

4

2018/C 328/05

Case C-528/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment — Mutagenesis — Directive 2001/18/EC — Articles 2 and 3 — Annexes I A and I B — Concept of genetically modified organism — Techniques/methods of genetic modification conventionally used and deemed to be safe — New techniques/methods of mutagenesis — Risks for human health and the environment — Discretion of the Member States when transposing the directive — Directive 2002/53/EC — Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Herbicide-tolerant plant varieties — Article 4 — Acceptability of genetically modified varieties obtained by mutagenesis for inclusion in the common catalogue — Human health and environmental protection requirement — Exemption)

4

2018/C 328/06

Case C-553/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — TTL EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika — Sofia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Corporate taxation — Payments made by a company resident in a Member State to non-resident companies for the leasing of rail tankers — Obligation to charge withholding tax on income from a domestic source paid to a non-resident company — Non-compliance — Double taxation conventions — Charging the resident company default interest for non-payment of the withholding tax — Interest payable from the expiry of the statutory time limit for payment until the date on which evidence that the double taxation convention is applicable is furnished — Irrecoverable interest)

5

2018/C 328/07

Case C-585/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection — Standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection — Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 12 — Exclusion from refugee status — Persons registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) — Existence of a first country of asylum, for a refugee from Palestine, in the UNRWA area of operations — Common procedures for granting international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 46 — Right to an effective remedy — Full and ex nunc examination — Scope of the powers of the court of first instance — Examination by the courts of international protection needs — Examination of grounds of inadmissibility)

6

2018/C 328/08

Case C-632/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV v BSH Home Appliances NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Retail of vacuum cleaners — Energy class label — Directive 2010/30/EU — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 — Vacuum cleaners — Display of other symbols — Unfair commercial practices — Consumer protection — Directive 2005/29/EC — Article 7 — Failure to state the conditions under which energy efficiency is measured — Misleading omission)

8

2018/C 328/09

Case C-679/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Freedom to move and reside in the Member States — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Social assistance — Sickness benefits — Services provided to people with disabilities — Obligation of a municipality in one Member State to provide one of its residents with personal assistance provided for under national legislation while that resident is in higher education in another Member State)

9

2018/C 328/10

Case C-5/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v DPAS Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemption — Article 135(1)(d) — Transactions concerning payments and transfers — Concept — Scope — Dental payment plan by direct debit)

9

2018/C 328/11

Joined Cases C-84/17 P, C-85/17 P and C-95/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-84/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Société des produits Nestlé SA (C-85/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd, Société des produits Nestlé SA (C-95/17 P) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a four-fingered chocolate bar — Appeal directed against the grounds — Inadmissibility — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) — Evidence of distinctive character acquired through use)

10

2018/C 328/12

Case C-96/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Consequences of a disciplinary dismissal found to be unfair — Definition of working conditions — Temporary worker with a contract of indefinite duration — Difference in treatment between permanent workers and temporary workers with a fixed-term contract or contract of indefinite duration — Reinstatement of the worker or granting of compensation)

o

11

2018/C 328/13

Case C-103/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Messer France SAS, formerly Praxair v Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 92/12/EEC — Article 3(2) — Directive 2003/96/EC — Articles 3 and 18 — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Excise duties — Existence of another indirect tax — Conditions — National legislation providing for a contribution to the public electricity service — Definition of specific purposes — Compliance with a minimum level of taxation)

12

2018/C 328/14

Case C-107/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Aviabaltika UAB v Ūkio bankas AB, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/47/EC — Enforcement of financial collateral arrangements — Commencement of insolvency proceedings against the collateral taker — Occurrence of the enforcement event — Inclusion of the financial collateral in the assets remaining after the insolvency — Obligation to satisfy the claims primarily from the financial collateral)

13

2018/C 328/15

Case C-121/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as Mylan v Gilead Sciences Inc. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) — Originator medicines and generic medicines — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3(a) — Conditions for obtaining — Concept of a product protected by a basic patent in force — Criteria for assessment)

13

2018/C 328/16

Case C-129/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5 — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9 — Trade mark proprietor entitled to oppose removal by a third party of all the signs identical to that trade mark and the affixing of new signs on goods identical to those for which the trade mark has been registered with a view to importing or placing them on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA))

14

2018/C 328/17

Case C-139/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Microchip Technology, Inc. (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Opposition proceedings — Application for the word mark medialbo — Earlier mark MediaLB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Notice of opposition filed by a person who is not the proprietor of the earlier mark — No formal application for registration of the transfer of the earlier mark within the opposition period — Inadmissibility)

15

2018/C 328/18

Case C-140/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167, 168 and 184 — Deduction of input tax — Adjustment — Immovable property acquired as capital goods — Initial allocation to an activity which does not confer entitlement to deduct input tax and subsequently also to an activity subject to VAT — Public body — Taxable-person status at the time of the taxable transaction)

15

2018/C 328/19

Case C-164/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Edel Grace, Peter Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 6(3) and (4) — Assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site — Plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site — Wind farm project — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Article 4 — Special Protection Area (SPA) — Annex I — Hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) — Suitable habitat fluctuating over time — Temporary or permanent reduction of the amount of appropriate land — Measures included in the project to ensure that, during the lifetime of the project, the amount of land that is in fact suitable for hosting the natural habitat of the species will not be reduced and indeed may be enhanced)

16

2018/C 328/20

Case C-205/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Collection and treatment of urban waste water — Directive 91/271/EEC — Articles 3 and 4 — Judgment of the Court declaring a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Penalty payment and lump sum)

17

2018/C 328/21

Case C-239/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Gert Teglgaard, Fløjstrupgård I/S v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Support schemes for farmers — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Article 6(1) — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 23(1) — Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Article 66(1) — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Article 70(8)(a) — Cross-compliance — Reduction in direct payments due to non-compliance with the statutory management requirements or good agricultural and environmental conditions — Determination of the year to be taken into account in order to determine the percentage reduction — Year in which the non-compliance occurred)

17

2018/C 328/22

Case C-268/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski Sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — Issue of a European arrest warrant against AY (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(2), Article 3(2) and Article 4(3) — Grounds for the refusal to execute — Closure of a criminal investigation — Principle ne bis in idem — Requested person who had the status of a witness in previous proceedings concerning the same acts — Issue of several European arrest warrants against the same person)

18

2018/C 328/23

Case C-338/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo v Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite Fund (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency — Directive 2008/94/EC — Articles 3 and 4 — Employees’ claims borne by guarantee institutions — Limitation on the liability of guarantee institutions — Exclusion of wage claims arising over three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings)

19

2018/C 328/24

Case C-404/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — A v Migrationsverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 31(8) and Article 32(2) — Manifestly unfounded application for international protection — Concept of safe country of origin — No national rules concerning that concept — Applicant’s representations considered to be reliable but insufficient having regard to the satisfactory protection offered by the applicant’s country of origin)

20

2018/C 328/25

Case C-445/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli v Pilato SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Headings 8703, 8704 and 8705 — Hearses)

20

2018/C 328/26

Case C-574/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Combaro SA (Appeal — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 239 — Remission of import duties — Import of linen fabrics from Latvia between 1999 and 2002 — Special situation — Supervision and monitoring obligations — Corruption alleged of the customs authorities — Inauthentic movement certificate — Mutual trust)

21

2018/C 328/27

Case C-588/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — incurred by the Kingdom of Spain — Aid granted in respect of areas with natural handicaps and agri-environment measures in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castile and León)

21

2018/C 328/28

Case C-216/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against LM (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(3) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal)

22

2018/C 328/29

Case C-220/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against ML (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(3) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Grounds for non-execution — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 4 — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Detention conditions in the issuing Member State — Scope of the assessment undertaken by the executing judicial authorities — Existence of a legal remedy in the issuing Member State — Assurance given by the authorities of that Member State)

23

2018/C 328/30

Case C-440/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — GS v Bundeszentalamt für Steuern (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Directive 2011/96/EU — Article 1(2) — Parent company — Holding company — Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company — Exemption — Tax evasion, avoidance or abuse — Presumption)

24

2018/C 328/31

Case C-241/18: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli — Italy) — easyJet Airline Co. Ltd v Regione Campania (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information regarding the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying why an answer to the questions referred is necessary — Manifest inadmissibility)

24

2018/C 328/32

Case C-340/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against EK, AH and CX

25

2018/C 328/33

Case C-360/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2018 — Cargill Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

25

2018/C 328/34

Case C-374/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 7 June 2018 — UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG, DPD Dynamic Parcel Distribution GmbH & Co. KG, Bundesverband Paket & Expresslogistik e.V. v Deutsche Post AG

26

2018/C 328/35

Case C-388/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2018 — Finanzamt A v B

27

2018/C 328/36

Case C-446/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 9 July 2018 — AGROBET CZ, s.r.o. v Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

28

2018/C 328/37

Case C-447/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 9 July 2018 — UB v Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava

28

2018/C 328/38

Case C-481/18: Action brought on 23 July 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic

29

2018/C 328/39

Case C-487/18: Action brought on 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

29

General Court

2018/C 328/40

Case T-58/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Stührk Delikatessen Import v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimp — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law — 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines — Mitigating factors — Substantially limited involvement — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Maximum of 10 % of total turnover — Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Paragraph 37 of the 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons)

31

2018/C 328/41

Case T-419/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Imputability of the infringement — Presumption — Error of assessment — Presumption of innocence — Legal certainty — Principle of personal responsibility — Unlimited jurisdiction)

31

2018/C 328/42

Case T-422/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Viscas v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

32

2018/C 328/43

Case T-438/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Concept of an undertaking — Economic succession — Single and continuous infringement — Evidence of the infringement — Public distancing — Duration of participation — Equal treatment — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

33

2018/C 328/44

Case T-439/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — LS Cable & System v Commission (Competition — Agreement, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Single and continuous infringement — Sufficient proof — Contributing to the single objective of the infringement — Knowledge of key elements of the infringement — Calculation of the fine — Basic amount — Paragraph 18 of the Guidelines — Gravity of the infringement — Proportionality — Mitigating circumstances — Unlimited jurisdiction)

33

2018/C 328/45

Case T-441/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Brugg Kabel and Kabelwerke Brugg v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

34

2018/C 328/46

Case T-444/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Furukawa Electric v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

35

2018/C 328/47

Case T-445/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — ABB v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Evidence of the infringement — Products concerned — Public distancing — Duration of participation — Equal treatment)

35

2018/C 328/48

Case T-446/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Taihan Electric Wire v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Insurmountable barriers to entry — Inapplicability of Article 101 — Duration of involvement — Equal treatment — Calculation of the fine — Value of sales — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Unlimited jurisdiction)

36

2018/C 328/49

Case T-447/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Evidence of the infringement — Duration of Involvement — Public Distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

37

2018/C 328/50

Case T-448/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Hitachi Metals v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

37

2018/C 328/51

Case T-449/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Illegal nature of the inspection decision — Reasonable time — Principle of sound administration — Principle of personal responsibility — Joint and several liability for payment of the fine — Sufficient proof of the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Unlimited jurisdiction)

38

2018/C 328/52

Case T-450/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Sumitomo Electric Industries and J-Power Systems v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

38

2018/C 328/53

Case T-451/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Fujikura v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

39

2018/C 328/54

Case T-455/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Pirelli & C. v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Imputability of the infringement — Presumption — Obligation to state reasons — Fundamental rights — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Beneficium ordinis seu excussionis — Unlimited jurisdiction)

40

2018/C 328/55

Case T-475/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Illegal nature of the inspection decision — Reasonable time — Principle of sound administration — Principle of personal responsibility — Joint and several liability for payment of the fine — Sufficient proof of the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Unlimited jurisdiction)

40

2018/C 328/56

Case T-606/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Pereira v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Non-promotion — 2015 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 — Obligation to state reasons — Comparative merits — Seniority in the grade — Accumulated merits — Manifest errors of assessment)

41

2018/C 328/57

Case T-608/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PA v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Staff report — 2014 appraisal period — Promotion — 2015 appraisal period — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of power — Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

42

2018/C 328/58

Case T-745/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BPCE v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions — Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Discretion of the ECB — Errors of law — Manifest error of assessment)

43

2018/C 328/59

Case T-757/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Société générale v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions — Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Discretion of the ECB — Errors of law — Manifest error of assessment)

44

2018/C 328/60

Case T-758/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Crédit agricole v ECB (Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions — Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Discretion of the ECB — Errors of law — Manifest error of assessment)

45

2018/C 328/61

Case T-9/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — RI v Council (Civil service — Officials — Invalidity pension — Fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to recognise the invalidity as arising from an occupational disease — Incorrect view of the concept of occupational disease — Obligation to state reasons)

45

2018/C 328/62

Case T-41/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland (Representation of a koala bear) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark representing koalas — Earlier national three-dimensional mark KOALA-BÄREN Schöller lustige Gebäckfiguren — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Power to alter decisions)

46

2018/C 328/63

Case T-514/15: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Request for access to detailed opinions issued in the course of a notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC — Documents relating to an infringement procedure — Refusal to grant access — Disclosure after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

47

2018/C 328/64

Case T-904/16: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions (Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Amicable settlement — Implementation of the agreement — [confidential] — Misuse of powers — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

48

2018/C 328/65

Case T-256/17: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Labiri v EESC (Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Amicable settlement — Performance of the agreement — Error in law — Error in assessment — Misuse of powers — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

48

2018/C 328/66

Case T-392/17: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — TE v Commission (Action for annulment — Opening of an external investigation by OLAF — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

49

2018/C 328/67

Case T-769/17: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — roelliroelli confectionery schweiz v EUIPO — Tanner (ALPRAUSCH) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Declaration of revocation of the opposing trade mark — No need to adjudicate)

49

2018/C 328/68

Case T-783/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — GE Healthcare v Commission (Application for interim measures — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Suspension of the marketing authorisation for contrast agents containing gadolinium for human use — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

50

2018/C 328/69

Case T-224/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PV v Commission (Interim measures — Civil Service — Psychological harassment — Decisions taken by the Commission following dismissal — Disciplinary proceedings — Reassignment — Setting the salary at zero — Application for interim measures — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Partial inadmissibility — No prima facie case — No urgency)

51

2018/C 328/70

Case T-250/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — RATP v European Commission (Application for interim measures — Access to documents — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

51

2018/C 328/71

Case T-433/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Bax v ECB

52

2018/C 328/72

Case T-439/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Sintokogio v EUIPO (ProAssist)

53

2018/C 328/73

Case T-460/18: Action brought on 26 July 2018 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission

53

2018/C 328/74

Case T-464/18: Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO — Rubio Snacks (Tia Rosa)

54

2018/C 328/75

Case T-468/18: Action brought on 31 July 2018 — NSC Holding v EUIPO — Ibercondor Barcelona (CONDOR SERVICE, NSC)

55

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/1

---

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

(2018/C 328/01)

Last publication

OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.

Past publications

OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.

OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.

OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Orange Polska SA v European Commission, Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji, European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA), formerly the European Competitive Telecommunications Association

(Case C-123/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Polish wholesale market for fixed broadband internet access - Refusal to give access to the network and to supply wholesale products - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 7(1) - Article 23(2)(a) - Legitimate interest in finding an infringement which has come to an end - Calculation of the fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 - Gravity - Mitigating circumstances - Investments made by the infringing undertaking - Review of legality - Review exercising powers of unlimited jurisdiction - Substitution of grounds))

(2018/C 328/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Orange Polska SA (represented by: S. Hautbourg, avocat, P. Paśnik and M. Modzelewska de Raad, adwokaci, A. Howard, Barrister, and D. Beard QC,)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski, L. Malferrari and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents), Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji, (represented by P. Litwiński, adwokat), European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA), formerly the European Competitive Telecommunications Association, (represented by G.I. Moir and J. MacKenzie, Solicitors)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Orange Polska SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Orange Polska SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji and the European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA) to bear their own costs |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji and the European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA) to bear their own costs

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain, Lico Leasing SA, Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión SA

(Case C-128/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements for the purchase of ships (Spanish tax lease system) - Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid - Condition relating to selectivity - Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 328/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, E. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, (Agent), Lico Leasing SA, Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión SA (represented by M. Merola, avvocato, and M. Sánchez, abogado)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Bankia SA, Asociación Española de Banca, Unicaja Banco SA, Liberbank SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Gallego SA, Catalunya Banc SA, Caixabank SA, Banco Santander SA, Santander Investment SA, Naviera Bósforo AIE, Industria de Diseño Textil SA, Naviera Nebulosa de Omega AIE, Banco Mare Nostrum SA, Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA, Ibercaja Banco SA, Banco Grupo Cajatres SAU, Naviera Bósforo AIE, Joyería Tous SA, Corporación Alimentaria Guissona SA, Naviera Muriola AIE, Poal Investments XXI SL, Poal Investments XXII SL, Naviera Cabo Vilaboa C 1658 AIE, Naviera Cabo Domaio, C 1659 AIE, Caamaño Sistemas Metálicos SL, Blumaq SA, Grupo Ibérica de Congelados SA, RNB SL, Inversiones Antaviana SL, Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SAU, Banco de Albacete SA, Bodegas Muga SL, (represented by J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados), Aluminios Cortizo SAU, (represented by A. Beiras Cal, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2015, Spain and Others v Commission (T-515/13 and T-719/13, EU:T:2015:1004); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2015, Spain and Others v Commission (T-515/13 and T-719/13, EU:T:2015:1004);

| 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 costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves costs;

| 4. | Orders Bankia SA, Asociación Española de Banca, Unicaja Banco SA, Liberbank SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Gallego SA, Catalunya Banc SA, Caixabank SA, Banco de Santander SA, Santander Investment SA, Naviera Séneca AIE, Industria de Diseño Textil SA, Naviera Nebulosa de Omega AIE, Banco Mare Nostrum SA, Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA, Ibercaja Banco SA, Banco Grupo Cajatres SAU, Naviera Bósforo AIE, Joyería Tous SA, Corporación Alimentaria Guissona SA, Naviera Muriola AIE, Poal Investments XXI SL, Poal Investments XXII SL, Naviera Cabo Vilaboa C-1658 AIE, Naviera Cabo Domaio, C-1659 AIE, Caamaño Sistemas Metálicos SL, Blumaq SA, Grupo Ibérica de Congelados SA, RNB SL, Inversiones Antaviana SL, Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SAU, Banco de Albacete SA, Bodegas Muga SL and Aluminios Cortizo SAU to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Bankia SA, Asociación Española de Banca, Unicaja Banco SA, Liberbank SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Gallego SA, Catalunya Banc SA, Caixabank SA, Banco de Santander SA, Santander Investment SA, Naviera Séneca AIE, Industria de Diseño Textil SA, Naviera Nebulosa de Omega AIE, Banco Mare Nostrum SA, Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA, Ibercaja Banco SA, Banco Grupo Cajatres SAU, Naviera Bósforo AIE, Joyería Tous SA, Corporación Alimentaria Guissona SA, Naviera Muriola AIE, Poal Investments XXI SL, Poal Investments XXII SL, Naviera Cabo Vilaboa C-1658 AIE, Naviera Cabo Domaio, C-1659 AIE, Caamaño Sistemas Metálicos SL, Blumaq SA, Grupo Ibérica de Congelados SA, RNB SL, Inversiones Antaviana SL, Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SAU, Banco de Albacete SA, Bodegas Muga SL and Aluminios Cortizo SAU to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-135/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Scheme for the support of renewable electricity sources and energy-intensive users - Decision (EU) 2015/1585 - Validity in the light of Article 107 TFEU - Admissibility - Failure by the applicants in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment))

(2018/C 328/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Administrative Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), by decision of 23 February 2016, is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt

(Case C-528/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment - Mutagenesis - Directive 2001/18/EC - Articles 2 and 3 - Annexes I A and I B - Concept of ‘genetically modified organism’ - Techniques/methods of genetic modification conventionally used and deemed to be safe - New techniques/methods of mutagenesis - Risks for human health and the environment - Discretion of the Member States when transposing the directive - Directive 2002/53/EC - Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species - Herbicide-tolerant plant varieties - Article 4 - Acceptability of genetically modified varieties obtained by mutagenesis for inclusion in the common catalogue - Human health and environmental protection requirement - Exemption))

(2018/C 328/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confédération paysanne, Réseau Semences Paysannes, Les Amis de la Terre France, Collectif Vigilance OGM et Pesticides 16, Vigilance OG2M, CSFV 49, OGM dangers, Vigilance OGM 33, Fédération Nature et Progrès

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis constitute genetically modified organisms within the meaning of that provision.
  Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/18, read in conjunction with point 1 of Annex I B to that directive and in the light of recital 17 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that only organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record are excluded from the scope of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis constitute genetically modified organisms within the meaning of that provision.

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/18, read in conjunction with point 1 of Annex I B to that directive and in the light of recital 17 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that only organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record are excluded from the scope of that directive.

| 2. | Article 4(4) of Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that genetically modified varieties obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record are exempt from the obligations laid down in that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4(4) of Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that genetically modified varieties obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record are exempt from the obligations laid down in that provision.

| 3. | Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/18, read in conjunction with point 1 of Annex I B to that directive, in so far as it excludes from the scope of that directive organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not have the effect of denying Member States the option of subjecting such organisms, in compliance with EU law, in particular with the rules on the free movement of goods set out in Articles 34 TFEU to 36 TFEU, to the obligations laid down in that directive or to other obligations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/18, read in conjunction with point 1 of Annex I B to that directive, in so far as it excludes from the scope of that directive organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not have the effect of denying Member States the option of subjecting such organisms, in compliance with EU law, in particular with the rules on the free movement of goods set out in Articles 34 TFEU to 36 TFEU, to the obligations laid down in that directive or to other obligations.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘TTL’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

(Case C-553/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Corporate taxation - Payments made by a company resident in a Member State to non-resident companies for the leasing of rail tankers - Obligation to charge withholding tax on income from a domestic source paid to a non-resident company - Non-compliance - Double taxation conventions - Charging the resident company default interest for non-payment of the withholding tax - Interest payable from the expiry of the statutory time limit for payment until the date on which evidence that the double taxation convention is applicable is furnished - Irrecoverable interest))

(2018/C 328/06)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘TTL’ EOOD

Respondent: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

Intervener: Varhovna administrativna prokuratura

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, whereby the payment of income by a resident company to a company established in another Member State is, in principle, subject to withholding tax, except where otherwise provided in the double taxation convention entered into between those two Member States, if that legislation requires the resident company, which neither deducts nor pays that sum to the tax authorities of the first Member State, to pay irrecoverable default interest for the period from the expiry of the time limit for payment of the income tax up to the date on which the non-resident company proves that the requirements for the application of the double taxation convention have been fulfilled, even though, in accordance with that convention, the non-resident company is not liable to pay any tax in the first Member State or the amount thereof is lower than that normally payable under the tax law of that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

(Case C-585/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 12 - Exclusion from refugee status - Persons registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) - Existence of a ‘first country of asylum’, for a refugee from Palestine, in the UNRWA area of operations - Common procedures for granting international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46 - Right to an effective remedy - Full and ex nunc examination - Scope of the powers of the court of first instance - Examination by the courts of international protection needs - Examination of grounds of inadmissibility))

(2018/C 328/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Serin Alheto

Defendant: Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, read in conjunction with Article 10(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of an application for international protection lodged by a person registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) requires an examination of the question whether that person receives effective protection or assistance from that agency, provided that that application has not been previously rejected on the basis of a ground of inadmissibility or on the basis of a ground for exclusion other than that laid down in the first sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, read in conjunction with Article 10(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of an application for international protection lodged by a person registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) requires an examination of the question whether that person receives effective protection or assistance from that agency, provided that that application has not been previously rejected on the basis of a ground of inadmissibility or on the basis of a ground for exclusion other than that laid down in the first sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95.

| 2. | The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted and the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as:






  — | precluding national legislation which does not lay down or which incorrectly transposes the ground for no longer applying the ground for exclusion from being a refugee contained therein; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted and the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as:

—

precluding national legislation which does not lay down or which incorrectly transposes the ground for no longer applying the ground for exclusion from being a refugee contained therein;

| — | having direct effect; and |
| --- | --- |

—

having direct effect; and

| — | being applicable even if the applicant for international protection has not expressly referred to them. |
| --- | --- |

—

being applicable even if the applicant for international protection has not expressly referred to them.

| 3. | Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a court or tribunal of a Member State seised at first instance of an appeal against a decision relating to an application for international protection must examine both facts and points of law, such as the applicability of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 to the applicant’s circumstances, which the body that took that decision took into account or could have taken into account, and those which arose after the adoption of that decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a court or tribunal of a Member State seised at first instance of an appeal against a decision relating to an application for international protection must examine both facts and points of law, such as the applicability of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 to the applicant’s circumstances, which the body that took that decision took into account or could have taken into account, and those which arose after the adoption of that decision.

| 4. | Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement for a full and ex nunc examination of the facts and points of law may also concern the grounds of inadmissibility of the application for international protection referred to in Article 33(2) of that directive, where permitted under national law, and that, in the event that the court or tribunal hearing the appeal plans to examine a ground of inadmissibility which has not been examined by the determining authority, it must conduct a hearing of the applicant in order to allow that individual to express his or her point of view in person concerning the applicability of that ground to his or her particular circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement for a full and ex nunc examination of the facts and points of law may also concern the grounds of inadmissibility of the application for international protection referred to in Article 33(2) of that directive, where permitted under national law, and that, in the event that the court or tribunal hearing the appeal plans to examine a ground of inadmissibility which has not been examined by the determining authority, it must conduct a hearing of the applicant in order to allow that individual to express his or her point of view in person concerning the applicability of that ground to his or her particular circumstances.

| 5. | Point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 35 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that a person registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) must, if he or she is a beneficiary of effective protection or assistance from that agency in a third country that is not the territory in which he or she habitually resides but which forms part of the area of operations of that agency, be considered as enjoying sufficient protection in that third country, within the meaning of that provision, when it:






  — | agrees to readmit the person concerned after he or she has left its territory in order to apply for international protection in the European Union; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 35 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that a person registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) must, if he or she is a beneficiary of effective protection or assistance from that agency in a third country that is not the territory in which he or she habitually resides but which forms part of the area of operations of that agency, be considered as enjoying sufficient protection in that third country, within the meaning of that provision, when it:

—

agrees to readmit the person concerned after he or she has left its territory in order to apply for international protection in the European Union; and

| — | recognises that protection or assistance from UNRWA and supports the principle of non-refoulement, thus enabling the person concerned to stay in its territory in safety under dignified living conditions for as long as necessary in view of the risks in the territory of habitual residence. |
| --- | --- |

—

recognises that protection or assistance from UNRWA and supports the principle of non-refoulement, thus enabling the person concerned to stay in its territory in safety under dignified living conditions for as long as necessary in view of the risks in the territory of habitual residence.

| 6. | Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not establish common procedural standards in respect of the power to adopt a new decision concerning an application for international protection following the annulment, by the court hearing the appeal, of the initial decision taken on that application. However, the need to ensure that Article 46(3) of that directive has a practical effect and to ensure an effective remedy in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights requires that, in the event that the file is referred back to the quasi-judicial or administrative body referred to in Article 2(f) of that directive, a new decision must be adopted within a short period of time and must comply with the assessment contained in the judgment annulling the initial decision. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not establish common procedural standards in respect of the power to adopt a new decision concerning an application for international protection following the annulment, by the court hearing the appeal, of the initial decision taken on that application. However, the need to ensure that Article 46(3) of that directive has a practical effect and to ensure an effective remedy in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights requires that, in the event that the file is referred back to the quasi-judicial or administrative body referred to in Article 2(f) of that directive, a new decision must be adopted within a short period of time and must comply with the assessment contained in the judgment annulling the initial decision.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV v BSH Home Appliances NV

(Case C-632/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Retail of vacuum cleaners - Energy class label - Directive 2010/30/EU - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 - Vacuum cleaners - Display of other symbols - Unfair commercial practices - Consumer protection - Directive 2005/29/EC - Article 7 - Failure to state the conditions under which energy efficiency is measured - Misleading omission))

(2018/C 328/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV

Defendant: BSH Home Appliances NV

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that the act of not providing consumers with information on the testing conditions that resulted in the energy classification indicated on the label relating to the energy class of vacuum cleaners, the model of which is shown in Annex II to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners does not constitute a ‘misleading omission’ within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that the act of not providing consumers with information on the testing conditions that resulted in the energy classification indicated on the label relating to the energy class of vacuum cleaners, the model of which is shown in Annex II to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners does not constitute a ‘misleading omission’ within the meaning of that provision.

| 2. | Delegated Regulation No 665/2013, read in the light of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products, must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits the display, in a place other than the label relating to the energy class of vacuum cleaners, the model of which is shown in Annex II to Delegated Regulation No 665/2013, of labels or symbols recalling the information contained on that energy label, if such display is likely to mislead or confuse end-users with respect to the consumption of energy of the vacuum cleaner marketed at retail at issue during its use, which is for the referring court to verify, in view of all the relevant factors and having regard to the perception of the average end-user, who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, taking into account social, cultural and linguistic factors. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Delegated Regulation No 665/2013, read in the light of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products, must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits the display, in a place other than the label relating to the energy class of vacuum cleaners, the model of which is shown in Annex II to Delegated Regulation No 665/2013, of labels or symbols recalling the information contained on that energy label, if such display is likely to mislead or confuse end-users with respect to the consumption of energy of the vacuum cleaner marketed at retail at issue during its use, which is for the referring court to verify, in view of all the relevant factors and having regard to the perception of the average end-user, who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, taking into account social, cultural and linguistic factors.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A

(Case C-679/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Freedom to move and reside in the Member States - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Social assistance - Sickness benefits - Services provided to people with disabilities - Obligation of a municipality in one Member State to provide one of its residents with personal assistance provided for under national legislation while that resident is in higher education in another Member State))

(2018/C 328/09)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A

Intervener: Espoon kaupungin sosiaali- ja terveyslautakunnan yksilöasioiden jaosto

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a benefit such as the personal assistance at issue in the main proceedings, which entails, inter alia, covering the costs to which a severely disabled person’s everyday activities give rise, with the aim of enabling that person, who is not economically active, to study in higher education, does not fall within the concept of ‘sickness benefit’ within the meaning of that provision and is therefore outside the scope of Regulation No 883/2004. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a benefit such as the personal assistance at issue in the main proceedings, which entails, inter alia, covering the costs to which a severely disabled person’s everyday activities give rise, with the aim of enabling that person, who is not economically active, to study in higher education, does not fall within the concept of ‘sickness benefit’ within the meaning of that provision and is therefore outside the scope of Regulation No 883/2004.

| 2. | Articles 20 and 21 TFEU preclude the home municipality of a resident of a Member State who is severely disabled from refusing to grant that person a benefit, such as the personal assistance at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that he is staying in another Member State in order to pursue his higher education studies there. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 20 and 21 TFEU preclude the home municipality of a resident of a Member State who is severely disabled from refusing to grant that person a benefit, such as the personal assistance at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that he is staying in another Member State in order to pursue his higher education studies there.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v DPAS Limited

(Case C-5/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption - Article 135(1)(d) - Transactions concerning payments and transfers - Concept - Scope - Dental payment plan by direct debit))

(2018/C 328/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: DPAS Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax which is provided for therein for transactions concerning payments and transfers does not apply to a supply of services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists for the taxable person in requesting from the relevant financial institutions, first, that a sum of money be transferred from a patient’s bank account to that of the taxable person pursuant to a direct debit mandate and, second, that that sum, after deduction of the remuneration due to that taxable person, be transferred from the latter’s bank account to the respective bank accounts of that patient’s dentist and insurer.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-84/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Société des produits Nestlé SA (C-85/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd, Société des produits Nestlé SA (C-95/17 P)

(Joined Cases C-84/17 P, C-85/17 P and C-95/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a four-fingered chocolate bar - Appeal directed against the grounds - Inadmissibility - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(3) - Evidence of distinctive character acquired through use))

(2018/C 328/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Société des produits Nestlé SA (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat, and S. Malynicz QC) (C-84/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC and J. Lane Heald, Barrister, instructed by P. Walsh, J. Blum and C. MacLeod, Solicitors) (C-85/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent) (C-95/17 P)

Other parties to the proceedings: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC and J. Lane Heald, Barrister, instructed by P. Walsh and J. Blum, Solicitors), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent) (C-84/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Société des produits Nestlé SA, (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat, and S. Malynicz QC) (C-85/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC and J. Lane Heald, Barrister, instructed by P. Walsh and J. Blum, Solicitors), Société des produits Nestlé SA (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat, and S. Malynicz QC) (C-95/17 P)

Interveners in support of the appelant in Case C-84/17 P: European Association of Trade Mark Owners (MARQUES) (represented by: M. Viefhues, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders Société des produits Nestlé SA, European Association of Trade Mark Owners (MARQUES), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Société des produits Nestlé SA, European Association of Trade Mark Owners (MARQUES), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017, p. 4.

OJ C 161, 22.5.2017, p. 9.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

(Case C-96/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Consequences of a disciplinary dismissal found to be ‘unfair’ - Definition of ‘working conditions’ - Temporary worker with a contract of indefinite duration - Difference in treatment between permanent workers and temporary workers with a fixed-term contract or contract of indefinite duration - Reinstatement of the worker or granting of compensation))

(2018/C 328/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi

Defendant: Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which, when the disciplinary dismissal of a permanent worker in the service of a public authority is declared wrongful, the worker in question must be reinstated, whereas, in the same situation, a worker employed under a temporary contract or a temporary contract of indefinite duration performing the same duties as that permanent worker need not be reinstated but instead may receive compensation.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Messer France SAS, formerly Praxair v Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer

(Case C-103/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Directive 92/12/EEC - Article 3(2) - Directive 2003/96/EC - Articles 3 and 18 - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Excise duties - Existence of another indirect tax - Conditions - National legislation providing for a contribution to the public electricity service - Definition of ‘specific purposes’ - Compliance with a minimum level of taxation))

(2018/C 328/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Messer France SAS, formerly Praxair

Defendants: Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The second subparagraph of Article 18(10) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that, until 1 January 2009, compliance with the minimum rates of taxation laid down in that directive was, in the context of rules on the taxation of electricity laid down by EU law, the only obligation incumbent on the French Republic. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The second subparagraph of Article 18(10) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that, until 1 January 2009, compliance with the minimum rates of taxation laid down in that directive was, in the context of rules on the taxation of electricity laid down by EU law, the only obligation incumbent on the French Republic.

| 2. | Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products must be interpreted as meaning that levying another indirect tax on electricity is not conditional on the imposition of a harmonised excise duty and that, since a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not constitute such an excise duty, its compatibility with Directives 92/12 and 2003/96 must be assessed in the light of the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12 for determining the existence of other indirect taxes for specific purposes. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products must be interpreted as meaning that levying another indirect tax on electricity is not conditional on the imposition of a harmonised excise duty and that, since a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not constitute such an excise duty, its compatibility with Directives 92/12 and 2003/96 must be assessed in the light of the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12 for determining the existence of other indirect taxes for specific purposes.

| 3. | Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12 must be interpreted as meaning that a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings may be classified as ‘another indirect tax’ as regards its environmental objective, which is intended to finance additional costs resulting from the obligation to purchase green energy, but not as regards its objectives of territorial and social cohesion, such as the geographical price-balancing mechanism and the reduction in the price of electricity for low-income households, or as regards its purely administrative objectives, including the financing of costs inherent in the administrative operations of public authorities or institutions such as the médiateur national de l’énergie and the Caisse des dépôts et consignations, subject to verification by the referring court of compliance with the tax rules applicable for excise duty purposes. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12 must be interpreted as meaning that a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings may be classified as ‘another indirect tax’ as regards its environmental objective, which is intended to finance additional costs resulting from the obligation to purchase green energy, but not as regards its objectives of territorial and social cohesion, such as the geographical price-balancing mechanism and the reduction in the price of electricity for low-income households, or as regards its purely administrative objectives, including the financing of costs inherent in the administrative operations of public authorities or institutions such as the médiateur national de l’énergie and the Caisse des dépôts et consignations, subject to verification by the referring court of compliance with the tax rules applicable for excise duty purposes.

| 4. | EU law must be interpreted as meaning that the taxable persons concerned are entitled to partial reimbursement of a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings in the proportion in which revenue raised from that tax was allocated to non-specific objectives, provided that that tax was not directly passed on by the taxable persons to their own customers, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court. |
| --- | --- |

4.

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that the taxable persons concerned are entitled to partial reimbursement of a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings in the proportion in which revenue raised from that tax was allocated to non-specific objectives, provided that that tax was not directly passed on by the taxable persons to their own customers, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Aviabaltika’ UAB v ‘Ūkio bankas’ AB, in liquidation

(Case C-107/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/47/EC - Enforcement of financial collateral arrangements - Commencement of insolvency proceedings against the collateral taker - Occurrence of the enforcement event - Inclusion of the financial collateral in the assets remaining after the insolvency - Obligation to satisfy the claims primarily from the financial collateral))

(2018/C 328/14)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Aviabaltika’ UAB

Respondent:‘Ūkio bankas’ AB, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4(5) of Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, as amended by Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to adopt rules which enable a taker of collateral provided under a security financial collateral arrangement to recover its claim, arising from a failure to discharge the relevant financial obligations, from that collateral, where the enforcement event occurs after insolvency proceedings have been commenced against that taker. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(5) of Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, as amended by Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to adopt rules which enable a taker of collateral provided under a security financial collateral arrangement to recover its claim, arising from a failure to discharge the relevant financial obligations, from that collateral, where the enforcement event occurs after insolvency proceedings have been commenced against that taker.

| 2. | Article 4(1) and (5) of Directive 2002/47, as amended by Directive 2009/44, must be interpreted as not requiring the taker of collateral provided under a security financial collateral arrangement to recover its claim, arising from a failure to discharge the financial obligations covered by that arrangement, primarily from that collateral. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4(1) and (5) of Directive 2002/47, as amended by Directive 2009/44, must be interpreted as not requiring the taker of collateral provided under a security financial collateral arrangement to recover its claim, arising from a failure to discharge the financial obligations covered by that arrangement, primarily from that collateral.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as ‘Mylan’ v Gilead Sciences Inc.

(Case C-121/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) - Originator medicines and generic medicines - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3(a) - Conditions for obtaining - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria for assessment))

(2018/C 328/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as ‘Mylan’

Defendant: Gilead Sciences Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, must be interpreted as meaning that a product composed of several active ingredients with a combined effect is ‘protected by a basic patent in force’ within the meaning of that provision where, even if the combination of active ingredients of which that product is composed is not expressly mentioned in the claims of the basic patent, those claims relate necessarily and specifically to that combination. For that purpose, from the point of view of a person skilled in the art and on the basis of the prior art at the filing date or priority date of the basic patent:

| — | the combination of those active ingredients must necessarily, in the light of the description and drawings of that patent, fall under the invention covered by that patent, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the combination of those active ingredients must necessarily, in the light of the description and drawings of that patent, fall under the invention covered by that patent, and

| — | each of those active ingredients must be specifically identifiable, in the light of all the information disclosed by that patent. |
| --- | --- |

—

each of those active ingredients must be specifically identifiable, in the light of all the information disclosed by that patent.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA

(Case C-129/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5 - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9 - Trade mark proprietor entitled to oppose removal by a third party of all the signs identical to that trade mark and the affixing of new signs on goods identical to those for which the trade mark has been registered with a view to importing or placing them on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA)))

(2018/C 328/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV

Respondents: Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a mark is entitled to oppose a third party, without its consent, removing all the signs identical to that mark and affixing other signs on products placed in the customs warehouse, as in the main proceedings, with a view to importing them or trading them in the EEA where they have never yet been marketed.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Microchip Technology, Inc.

(Case C-139/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Opposition proceedings - Application for the word mark medialbo - Earlier mark MediaLB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Notice of opposition filed by a person who is not the proprietor of the earlier mark - No formal application for registration of the transfer of the earlier mark within the opposition period - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 328/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (represented by: C. Russ, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and M. Fischer, acting as Agents), Microchip Technology, Inc. (represented by: C. Bergmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders QuaMa Quality Management GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders QuaMa Quality Management GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo

(Case C-140/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168 and 184 - Deduction of input tax - Adjustment - Immovable property acquired as capital goods - Initial allocation to an activity which does not confer entitlement to deduct input tax and subsequently also to an activity subject to VAT - Public body - Taxable-person status at the time of the taxable transaction))

(2018/C 328/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Defendant: Gmina Ryjewo

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167, 168 and 184 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of the neutrality of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a body governed by public law from being entitled to a right to adjustment of deductions of value added tax paid on immovable property acquired as capital goods in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where, at the time of the acquisition of those goods, first, they could, by their very nature, be used both for taxable activities and for non-taxable activities but were initially used for non-taxable activities, and second, that public body had not expressly stated its intention to use those goods for a taxable activity but had also not excluded the possibility that they might be used for such a purpose, so long as it follows from an assessment of all the factual circumstances, which it is for the referring court to carry out, that the condition laid down by Article 168 of Directive 2006/112, according to which the taxable person must have acted as a taxable person at the time when it made that acquisition, is satisfied.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Edel Grace, Peter Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála

(Case C-164/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 6(3) and (4) - Assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site - Plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site - Wind farm project - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Article 4 - Special Protection Area (SPA) - Annex I - Hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) - Suitable habitat fluctuating over time - Temporary or permanent reduction of the amount of appropriate land - Measures included in the project to ensure that, during the lifetime of the project, the amount of land that is in fact suitable for hosting the natural habitat of the species will not be reduced and indeed may be enhanced))

(2018/C 328/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edel Grace, Peter Sweetman

Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 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, where it is intended to carry out a project on a site designated for the protection and conservation of certain species, of which the area suitable for providing for the needs of a protected species fluctuates over time, and the temporary or permanent effect of that project will be that some parts of the site will no longer be able to provide a suitable habitat for the species in question, the fact that the project includes measures to ensure that, after an appropriate assessment of the implications of the project has been carried out and throughout the lifetime of the project, the part of the site that is in fact likely to provide a suitable habitat will not be reduced and indeed may be enhanced may not be taken into account for the purpose of the assessment that must be carried out in accordance with Article 6(3) of the directive to ensure that the project in question will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned; that fact falls to be considered, if need be, under Article 6(4) of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-205/17) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Collection and treatment of urban waste water - Directive 91/271/EEC - Articles 3 and 4 - Judgment of the Court declaring a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Penalty payment and lump sum))

(2018/C 328/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

| 2. | Orders that, if the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, the Kingdom of Spain must pay the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 10 950 000 for each six-month period of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260), has been complied with in full, the actual amount of which must be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total amount relating to each of those periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion that the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations whose urban waste water treatment and/or collection systems have been rendered compliant with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260) at the end of the period in question bears to the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations not having such systems on the day of delivery of the present judgment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that, if the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, the Kingdom of Spain must pay the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 10 950 000 for each six-month period of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260), has been complied with in full, the actual amount of which must be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total amount relating to each of those periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion that the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations whose urban waste water treatment and/or collection systems have been rendered compliant with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260) at the end of the period in question bears to the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations not having such systems on the day of delivery of the present judgment;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 12 million; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 12 million;

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Gert Teglgaard, Fløjstrupgård I/S v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter

(Case C-239/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Support schemes for farmers - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 6(1) - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 23(1) - Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Article 66(1) - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Article 70(8)(a) - Cross-compliance - Reduction in direct payments due to non-compliance with the statutory management requirements or good agricultural and environmental conditions - Determination of the year to be taken into account in order to determine the percentage reduction - Year in which the non-compliance occurred))

(2018/C 328/21)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gert Teglgaard, Fløjstrupgård I/S

Defendant: Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 146/2008, and Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006 and (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that reductions in direct payments due to non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules must be calculated on the basis of payments granted or to be granted in the year during which that non-compliance occurred;
  Article 66(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003 (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18) and Article 70(8)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, must be interpreted as meaning that reductions in direct payments thus calculated are to be applied to payments received or to be received in the calendar year during which the non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules is found; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 146/2008, and Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006 and (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that reductions in direct payments due to non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules must be calculated on the basis of payments granted or to be granted in the year during which that non-compliance occurred;

Article 66(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003 (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18) and Article 70(8)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, must be interpreted as meaning that reductions in direct payments thus calculated are to be applied to payments received or to be received in the calendar year during which the non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules is found;

| 2. | The relevant EU rules applicable to the calculation of the reduction in direct payments when a farmer has not complied with the cross-compliance rules in 2007-2008, but that non-compliance was found only during 2011, are Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 for 2007 and the first three months of 2008, and Article 6(1) of that regulation, as amended by Regulation No 146/2008, for the period from April to December 2008. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The relevant EU rules applicable to the calculation of the reduction in direct payments when a farmer has not complied with the cross-compliance rules in 2007-2008, but that non-compliance was found only during 2011, are Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 for 2007 and the first three months of 2008, and Article 6(1) of that regulation, as amended by Regulation No 146/2008, for the period from April to December 2008.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski Sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — Issue of a European arrest warrant against AY

(Case C-268/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(2), Article 3(2) and Article 4(3) - Grounds for the refusal to execute - Closure of a criminal investigation - Principle ne bis in idem - Requested person who had the status of a witness in previous proceedings concerning the same acts - Issue of several European arrest warrants against the same person))

(2018/C 328/22)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Županijski Sud u Zagrebu

Party to the main proceedings

AY

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as requiring the judicial authority of the executing Member State to adopt a decision on any European arrest warrant forwarded to it, even when, in that Member State, a ruling has already been made on a previous European arrest warrant concerning the same person and the same acts, but the second European arrest warrant has been issued only on account of the indictment, in the issuing Member State, of the requested person. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as requiring the judicial authority of the executing Member State to adopt a decision on any European arrest warrant forwarded to it, even when, in that Member State, a ruling has already been made on a previous European arrest warrant concerning the same person and the same acts, but the second European arrest warrant has been issued only on account of the indictment, in the issuing Member State, of the requested person.

| 2. | Article 3(2) and Article 4(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, such as that of the Hungarian National Bureau of Investigation in question in the main proceedings, which terminated an investigation opened against an unknown person, during which the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant was interviewed as a witness only, without criminal proceedings having been brought against that person and where the decision was not taken in respect of that person, cannot be relied on for the purpose of refusing to execute that European arrest warrant pursuant to either of those provisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(2) and Article 4(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, such as that of the Hungarian National Bureau of Investigation in question in the main proceedings, which terminated an investigation opened against an unknown person, during which the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant was interviewed as a witness only, without criminal proceedings having been brought against that person and where the decision was not taken in respect of that person, cannot be relied on for the purpose of refusing to execute that European arrest warrant pursuant to either of those provisions.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo v ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund

(Case C-338/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency - Directive 2008/94/EC - Articles 3 and 4 - Employees’ claims borne by guarantee institutions - Limitation on the liability of guarantee institutions - Exclusion of wage claims arising over three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings))

(2018/C 328/23)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo

Defendant:‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Article 4(1) of the Zakon za garantiranite vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite pri nesastoyatelnost na rabotodatelia (Law on employees’ guaranteed claims in the event of the employer’s insolvency), which does not guarantee the wage claims of employees whose employment relationship ended more than three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings in respect of their employer.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/20

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — A v Migrationsverket

(Case C-404/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 31(8) and Article 32(2) - Manifestly unfounded application for international protection - Concept of safe country of origin - No national rules concerning that concept - Applicant’s representations considered to be reliable but insufficient having regard to the satisfactory protection offered by the applicant’s country of origin))

(2018/C 328/24)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 31(8)(b) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 32(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as not allowing an application for international protection to be regarded as manifestly unfounded in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which, first, it is apparent from the information on the applicant’s country of origin that acceptable protection can be ensured for him in that country and, secondly, the applicant has provided insufficient information to justify the grant of international protection, where the Member State in which the application was lodged has not adopted rules implementing the concept of safe country of origin.

---

(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli v Pilato SpA

(Case C-445/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 8703, 8704 and 8705 - Hearses))

(2018/C 328/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Defendant: Pilato SpA

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature 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, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that hearses such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings must be classified under heading 8703 of that combined nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2016.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Combaro SA

(Case C-574/17) (1)

((Appeal - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 239 - Remission of import duties - Import of linen fabrics from Latvia between 1999 and 2002 - Special situation - Supervision and monitoring obligations - Corruption alleged of the customs authorities - Inauthentic movement certificate - Mutual trust))

(2018/C 328/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: European Commission (represented by A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Combaro SA (represented by: D. Ehle, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2017, Combaro v Commission (T-752/14, EU:T:2017:529); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2017, Combaro v Commission (T-752/14, EU:T:2017:529);

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought by Combaro SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought by Combaro SA;

| 3. | Orders Combaro SA to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Combaro SA to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-588/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - incurred by the Kingdom of Spain - Aid granted in respect of areas with natural handicaps and agri-environment measures in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castile and León))

(2018/C 328/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Other party: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against LM

(Case C-216/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(3) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal))

(2018/C 328/28)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

LM

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing judicial authority, called upon to decide whether a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution is to be surrendered, has material, such as that set out in a reasoned proposal of the European Commission adopted pursuant to Article 7(1) TEU, indicating that there is a real risk of breach of the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on account of systemic or generalised deficiencies so far as concerns the independence of the issuing Member State’s judiciary, that authority must determine, specifically and precisely, whether, having regard to his personal situation, as well as to the nature of the offence for which he is being prosecuted and the factual context that form the basis of the European arrest warrant, and in the light of the information provided by the issuing Member State pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, there are substantial grounds for believing that that person will run such a risk if he is surrendered to that State.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/23

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against ML

(Case C-220/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(3) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Grounds for non-execution - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 4 - Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment - Detention conditions in the issuing Member State - Scope of the assessment undertaken by the executing judicial authorities - Existence of a legal remedy in the issuing Member State - Assurance given by the authorities of that Member State))

(2018/C 328/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

ML

Intervener: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3), Article 5 and Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that when the executing judicial authority has information showing there to be systemic or generalised deficiencies in the conditions of detention in the prisons of the issuing Member State, the accuracy of which must be verified by the referring court in the light of all the available updated data:

| — | the executing judicial authority cannot rule out a real risk that the person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, merely because that person has, in the issuing Member State, a legal remedy permitting him to challenge the conditions of his detention, although the existence of such a remedy may be taken into account by the executing judicial authority for the purpose of deciding on the surrender of the person concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

the executing judicial authority cannot rule out a real risk that the person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, merely because that person has, in the issuing Member State, a legal remedy permitting him to challenge the conditions of his detention, although the existence of such a remedy may be taken into account by the executing judicial authority for the purpose of deciding on the surrender of the person concerned;

| — | the executing judicial authority is required to assess only the conditions of detention in the prisons in which, according to the information available to it, it is likely that that person will be detained, including on a temporary or transitional basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

the executing judicial authority is required to assess only the conditions of detention in the prisons in which, according to the information available to it, it is likely that that person will be detained, including on a temporary or transitional basis;

| — | the executing judicial authority must assess, to that end, solely the actual and precise conditions of detention of the person concerned that are relevant for determining whether that person will be exposed to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

the executing judicial authority must assess, to that end, solely the actual and precise conditions of detention of the person concerned that are relevant for determining whether that person will be exposed to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

| — | the executing judicial authority may take into account information provided by authorities of the issuing Member State other than the issuing judicial authority, such as, in particular, an assurance that the individual concerned will not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

the executing judicial authority may take into account information provided by authorities of the issuing Member State other than the issuing judicial authority, such as, in particular, an assurance that the individual concerned will not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/24

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — GS v Bundeszentalamt für Steuern

(Case C-440/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Directive 2011/96/EU - Article 1(2) - Parent company - Holding company - Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company - Exemption - Tax evasion, avoidance or abuse - Presumption))

(2018/C 328/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GS

Defendant: Bundeszentalamt für Steuern

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2013/13/EU of 13 May 2013, and Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a withholding tax on dividends awarded by a resident subsidiary to its non-resident parent company, but which excludes the right of the latter to obtain reimbursement of or exemption from such withholding tax where, first, the shares in that parent company are held by persons who would not be entitled to such a reimbursement or such an exemption if they had received the dividends from such a subsidiary directly and that parent company has not earned its gross income for the trading year concerned from its own economic activity and, second, one of the two conditions laid down by that legislation is satisfied, namely either there are no economic or other significant reasons for the involvement of that parent company, or that company does not take part in general economic commerce with an establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose, without taking account of the organisational, economic or other significant features of the undertakings which are connected with the parent company in question.

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/24

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli — Italy) — easyJet Airline Co. Ltd v Regione Campania

(Case C-241/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Insufficient information regarding the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying why an answer to the questions referred is necessary - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2018/C 328/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

Defendant: Regione Campania

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli (Provincial Tax Court, Naples, Italy), by decision of 5 March 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against EK, AH and CX

(Case C-340/18)

(2018/C 328/32)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

EK, AH and CX

By order of the Court of 3 July 2018, the case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2018 — Cargill Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

(Case C-360/18)

(2018/C 328/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cargill Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

Question referred

Is the reimbursement of production levies in the sugar sector — for which, under Council Regulation (EU) No 1360/2013 of 2 December 2013 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 marketing years, the coefficient required for calculating the additional levy for the 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 marketing years and the amount to be paid by sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the difference between the maximum levy and the levy to be charged for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 marketing years, (1) different calculations to those used previously are to be made — to be carried out, in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, in accordance with national law and in particular in application of the limitation period set out thereunder?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 343, p. 2.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 7 June 2018 — UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG, DPD Dynamic Parcel Distribution GmbH & Co. KG, Bundesverband Paket & Expresslogistik e.V. v Deutsche Post AG

(Case C-374/18)

(2018/C 328/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG, DPD Dynamic Parcel Distribution GmbH & Co. KG, Bundesverband Paket & Expresslogistik e.V.

Defendant: Deutsche Post AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that that provision permits exceptions from Articles 5 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 only in the event that a vehicle of a universal service provider within the meaning of Article 2(13) of Directive 97/67/EC (2) transports solely and exclusively items forming part of the universal service, in accordance with Article 13(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, or are exceptions from Articles 5 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 also permissible under that provision in the case where the vehicles concerned, in addition to transporting items forming part of the universal service, also carry items that do not come under the universal service? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that that provision permits exceptions from Articles 5 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 only in the event that a vehicle of a universal service provider within the meaning of Article 2(13) of Directive 97/67/EC (2) transports solely and exclusively items forming part of the universal service, in accordance with Article 13(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, or are exceptions from Articles 5 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 also permissible under that provision in the case where the vehicles concerned, in addition to transporting items forming part of the universal service, also carry items that do not come under the universal service?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is that exceptions from Articles 5 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 are also permissible in the case where the vehicles concerned, in addition to transporting items forming part of the universal service, also carry other items that do not come under the universal service:






  a) | In that event, what proportion must the share of items which a vehicle carries as part of the universal service represent as a minimum? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is that exceptions from Articles 5 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 are also permissible in the case where the vehicles concerned, in addition to transporting items forming part of the universal service, also carry other items that do not come under the universal service:

a)

In that event, what proportion must the share of items which a vehicle carries as part of the universal service represent as a minimum?

| b) | In that event, what proportion may the share of items which do not come under the universal service and which the vehicle carries at the same time as those forming part of the universal service represent as a maximum? |
| --- | --- |

b)

In that event, what proportion may the share of items which do not come under the universal service and which the vehicle carries at the same time as those forming part of the universal service represent as a maximum?

| c) | How is such a proportion, as described in points a) and b), to be determined in each case? |
| --- | --- |

c)

How is such a proportion, as described in points a) and b), to be determined in each case?

| d) | Must such a proportion, as described in points a) and b), be defined for each individual journey performed by the vehicle concerned or is an average proportion, based on all the journeys performed by the vehicle in question, sufficient? |
| --- | --- |

d)

Must such a proportion, as described in points a) and b), be defined for each individual journey performed by the vehicle concerned or is an average proportion, based on all the journeys performed by the vehicle in question, sufficient?

| 3. | a) | Is a national provision of an EU State on driving times and rest periods for vehicles and combinations of vehicles for the carriage of goods with a maximum permissible mass in excess of 2,81 [tonnes] and not exceeding 3,51 [tonnes], which reproduces verbatim the provisions of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, to be interpreted exclusively on the basis of EU law? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

a)

Is a national provision of an EU State on driving times and rest periods for vehicles and combinations of vehicles for the carriage of goods with a maximum permissible mass in excess of 2,81 [tonnes] and not exceeding 3,51 [tonnes], which reproduces verbatim the provisions of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, to be interpreted exclusively on the basis of EU law?

| b) | Can a national court, notwithstanding the verbatim reproduction of EU law, apply different criteria to interpret the provisions reproduced from EU law? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Can a national court, notwithstanding the verbatim reproduction of EU law, apply different criteria to interpret the provisions reproduced from EU law?

| 4. | Is an item’s classification as an item forming part of the universal service in accordance with Directive 97/67/EC precluded where, in connection with that item, add-on services such as:






  — | collection (without a time slot); |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Is an item’s classification as an item forming part of the universal service in accordance with Directive 97/67/EC precluded where, in connection with that item, add-on services such as:

—

collection (without a time slot);

| — | collection (with a time slot); |
| --- | --- |

—

collection (with a time slot);

| — | minimum age check; |
| --- | --- |

—

minimum age check;

| — | cash on delivery; |
| --- | --- |

—

cash on delivery;

| — | postage payment by recipient up to 31,5 kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

postage payment by recipient up to 31,5 kg;

| — | redirection service; |
| --- | --- |

—

redirection service;

| — | sender’s instructions; |
| --- | --- |

—

sender’s instructions;

| — | preferred delivery day; |
| --- | --- |

—

preferred delivery day;

| — | preferred delivery time; |
| --- | --- |

—

preferred delivery time;

are offered?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (Text with EEA relevance) — Declaration (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2018 — Finanzamt A v B

(Case C-388/18)

(2018/C 328/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt A

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: B

Question referred

In cases involving the margin scheme provided for in Article 311 et seq. of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) must the provision contained in point 1 of the first sentence of Article 288 of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of assessing the turnover relevant under that provision, where this arises from a supply of goods as referred to in Article 314 of Directive 2006/112/EC, in accordance with Article 315 of Directive 2006/112/EC, account is to be taken of the difference between the selling price charged and the purchase price (profit margin)?

---

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

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 9 July 2018 — AGROBET CZ, s.r.o. v Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

(Case C-446/18)

(2018/C 328/36)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant (appellant): AGROBET CZ, s.r.o.

Defendant: Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

Question referred

Is it consistent with European Union law and in particular with the principle of VAT neutrality for a Member State to adopt a measure which makes the assessment and payment of part of a VAT deduction claimed conditional on the completion of a procedure applying to all taxable transactions in a given tax period?

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 9 July 2018 — UB v Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava

(Case C-447/18)

(2018/C 328/37)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UB

Respondent: Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava

Question referred

In the circumstances of the main proceedings, is it possible to interpret Article 1(w), Article 4 and Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, considered in conjunction with the right to social security benefits and social advantages, as enshrined in Article 34(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as precluding the application of a provision of national legislation pursuant to which the Slovak social security body is to take into consideration an applicant’s citizenship as a fundamental condition for the purposes of determining the right of national sports representatives to a benefit in addition to the old-age pension, even if another statutory requirement, namely the fact of having represented the legal predecessors of the State, including the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, is also part of that provision of national legislation?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/29

---

Action brought on 23 July 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-481/18)

(2018/C 328/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Szmytkowska and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2012/39/EU of 26 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/17/EC as regards certain technical requirements for the testing of human tissues and cells (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Directive 2012/39/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2012/39/EU of 26 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/17/EC as regards certain technical requirements for the testing of human tissues and cells (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Directive 2012/39/EU;

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Member States were required, under Article 2(1) of Directive 2012/39/EU, to adopt, by 17 June 2014, the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations under that directive into national law. Since the Italian Republic failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose that directive, or failed to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 327, p. 24.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/29

---

Action brought on 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-487/18)

(2018/C 328/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of its national programme for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, the Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of its national programme for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, the Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste; (1)

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Up to the present, the defendant has merely notified the Commission of a draft national programme. In its replies to the letter of formal notice and the reasoned opinion it explained that the national programme had still to be adopted by the Federal Government, something which had not yet occurred. Only after that adoption would notification of the national programme be possible. However, the defendant has not yet followed up on those announcements. The defendant has thus still not notified a national programme and has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 199, p. 48.

---

General Court

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Stührk Delikatessen Import v Commission

(Case T-58/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimp - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law - 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines - Mitigating factors - Substantially limited involvement - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Maximum of 10 % of total turnover - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Paragraph 37 of the 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 328/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG (Marne, Germany) (represented by: J. Sparr, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.39633 — Shrimps), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, secondly, a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the first paragraph of Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.39633 — Shrimps); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the first paragraph of Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.39633 — Shrimps);

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs as well as half of those incurred by Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs as well as half of those incurred by Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG;

| 4. | Orders Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG to bear half of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG to bear half of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission

(Case T-419/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability of the infringement - Presumption - Error of assessment - Presumption of innocence - Legal certainty - Principle of personal responsibility - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J. Koponen and A. Mangiaracina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, L. Malferrari, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Prysmian SpA (Milan, Italy) and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Milan) (represented by: C. Tesauro, F. Russo and L. Armati, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the [EEA] Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Viscas v Commission

(Case T-422/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viscas Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Giolito, L. Parpala, H. van Vliet and A. Biolan, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (Tokyo) (represented by C. Pouncey, A. Luke and L. Geary, Solicitors)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Viscas Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Viscas Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission

(Case T-438/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Concept of an undertaking - Economic succession - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence of the infringement - Public distancing - Duration of participation - Equal treatment - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Silec Cable SAS (Montereau-Fault-Yonne, France) and General Cable Corp. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: I. Sinan, Barrister, and I. De Beni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by D. Bailey, Barrister)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Silec Cable SAS and General Cable Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Silec Cable SAS and General Cable Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — LS Cable & System v Commission

(Case T-439/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreement, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Single and continuous infringement - Sufficient proof - Contributing to the single objective of the infringement - Knowledge of key elements of the infringement - Calculation of the fine - Basic amount - Paragraph 18 of the Guidelines - Gravity of the infringement - Proportionality - Mitigating circumstances - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LS Cable & System Ltd (Anyang-si, South Korea) (represented by: S. Kinsella and S. Spinks, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, A. Biolan and N. Khan, and subsequently by N. Khan and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by B. Rayment, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LS Cable & System Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LS Cable & System Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Brugg Kabel and Kabelwerke Brugg v Commission

(Case T-441/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Brugg Kabel AG (Brugg, Switzerland) and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding (Brugg) (represented by: A. Rinne, A. Boos and M. Lichtenegger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, H. van Vliet and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by A. Israel, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the [EEA] Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Furukawa Electric v Commission

(Case T-444/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by C. Pouncey, A. Luke and L. Geary, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Biolan, C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by M. Johansson, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Viscas Corp. (Tokyo) (represented by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Viscas Corp. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Viscas Corp. to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — ABB v Commission

(Case T-445/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence of the infringement - Products concerned - Public distancing - Duration of participation - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 328/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ABB Ltd (Zürich, Switzerland) and ABB AB (Västerås, Sweden) (represented by: I. Vandenborre and S. Dionnet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents, and by A. Bodnar, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ABB Ltd and ABB AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ABB Ltd and ABB AB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Taihan Electric Wire v Commission

(Case T-446/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Insurmountable barriers to entry - Inapplicability of Article 101 - Duration of involvement - Equal treatment - Calculation of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Taihan Electric Wire Co. Ltd (Anyang-Si, South Korea) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Taihan Electric Wire Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Taihan Electric Wire Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission

(Case T-447/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence of the infringement - Duration of Involvement - Public Distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH (Cologne, Germany) and NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S (Brøndby, Denmark) (represented by: M. Kofmann and B. Creve, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU primarily for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders NKT Verwaltungs GmbH and NKT A/S to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders NKT Verwaltungs GmbH and NKT A/S to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Hitachi Metals v Commission

(Case T-448/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hitachi Metals Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by P. Crowther and C. Drew, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hitachi Metals Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hitachi Metals Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission

(Case T-449/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Illegal nature of the inspection decision - Reasonable time - Principle of sound administration - Principle of personal responsibility - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine - Sufficient proof of the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nexans France SAS (Courbevoie, France) and Nexans SA (Courbevoie) (represented by: G. Forwood, lawyer, M. Powell, A. Rogers and A. Oh, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and A. Biolan, and subsequently by C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Sumitomo Electric Industries and J-Power Systems v Commission

(Case T-450/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd (Osaka, Japan) and J-Power Systems Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by M. Hansen, L. Crocco, J. Ruiz Calzado and S. Völcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd and J-Power Systems Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd and J-Power Systems Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Fujikura v Commission

(Case T-451/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fujikura Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by L. Gyselen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Biolan, C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by M. Johansson, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Viscas Corp. (Tokyo) (represented by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fujikura Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fujikura Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Viscas Corp. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Viscas Corp. to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Pirelli & C. v Commission

(Case T-455/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability of the infringement - Presumption - Obligation to state reasons - Fundamental rights - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Beneficium ordinis seu excussionis - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli & C. SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented initially by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, G. Rizza and P. Ferrari, and subsequently by M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, G. Rizza and A. Bardanzellu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, L. Malferrari and P. Rossi, and subsequently by H. van Vliet, L. Malferrari and P. Rossi, acting as Agents, and by P. Manzini, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Milan) (represented by: C. Tesauro, F. Russo and L. Armati, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pirelli & C. SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pirelli & C. SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi v Commission

(Case T-475/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Illegal nature of the inspection decision - Reasonable time - Principle of sound administration - Principle of personal responsibility - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine - Sufficient proof of the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Prysmian SpA (Milan, Italy) and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Milan) (represented by: C. Tesauro, F. Russo, L. Armati and C. Toniolo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, L. Malferrari, P. Rossi and H. van Vliet, and subsequently by C. Giolito, P. Rossi and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by S. Kingston, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the applicants: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J. Koponen and A. Mangiaracina, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Pirelli & C. SpA (Milan) (represented by: M. Siragusa, G. Rizza, P. Ferrari, F. Moretti and A. Fava, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear their own costs and to pay those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear their own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Pirelli & C. SpA to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Pirelli & C. SpA to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Pereira v Commission

(Case T-606/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Non-promotion - 2015 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 - Obligation to state reasons - Comparative merits - Seniority in the grade - Accumulated merits - Manifest errors of assessment))

(2018/C 328/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Felismino Pereira (Wavre, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, then N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid initially, then G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application brought pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant during the 2015 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decision rejecting his complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Felismino Pereira to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Felismino Pereira to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-36/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PA v Parliament

(Case T-608/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Staff report - 2014 appraisal period - Promotion - 2015 appraisal period - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of power - Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights))

(2018/C 328/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Deneys and V. Montebello-Demogeot, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of the applicant’s staff report for 2014, as finalised by the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 20 October 2015, second, of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 9 December 2015 awarding him one merit point for 2014, third, of the Parliament’s decision, communicated to the staff of that institution on 30 November 2015, not to promote the applicant to Grade AST 11 in the 2015 promotion exercise and, in so far as necessary, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 9 June 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 21 January 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders PA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 364 of 3.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case No F-38/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BPCE v ECB

(Case T-745/16) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 328/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BPCE (Paris, France) (represented by: initially A. Gosset Grainville, C. Renner and P. Kupka, then A. Gosset-Grainville, P. Kupka and M. Trabucchi and finally A. Gosset-Grainville and M. Trabucchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax and G. Bassani, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016 9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/195 of the ECB, of 24 August 2016, pursuant to Article 4(1)(d), of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and of Article 429(14) 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 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2016 9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/195 of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2016 9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/195 of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016;

| 2. | Orders the ECB to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs;

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

3.

Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Société générale v ECB

(Case T-757/16) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 328/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société générale (Paris, France) (represented by: initially A. Gosset-Grainville, C. Renner and P. Kupka, then A. Gosset-Grainville, P. Kupka and M. Trabucchi and finally A. Gosset-Grainville and M. Trabucchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax and G. Bassani, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016 O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/72 of the ECB, of 24 August 2016, pursuant to Article 4(1)(d), of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and of Article 429(14) 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 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2016 O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/72 of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2016 O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/72 of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016;

| 2. | Orders the ECB to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs;

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

3.

Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Crédit agricole v ECB

(Case T-758/16) (1)

((Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 328/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax, G. Bassani and C. Olivier, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/165 of the ECB, of 24 August 2016, pursuant to Article 4(1)(d), of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and of Article 429(14) 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 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2016 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/165 of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2016 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/165 of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016;

| 2. | Orders the ECB to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs;

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

3.

Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — RI v Council

(Case T-9/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Invalidity pension - Fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise the invalidity as arising from an occupational disease - Incorrect view of the concept of occupational disease - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 328/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RI (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and M. Forgeois, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Council of 8 February 2016 refusing to recognise the applicant’s invalidity as arising from an occupational disease under the fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 8 February 2016 refusing to recognise RI’s invalidity as arising from an occupational disease under the fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 8 February 2016 refusing to recognise RI’s invalidity as arising from an occupational disease under the fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

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

2.

Orders the Council to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland (Representation of a koala bear)

(Case T-41/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark representing koalas - Earlier national three-dimensional mark KOALA-BÄREN Schöller lustige Gebäckfiguren - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Power to alter decisions))

(2018/C 328/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lotte Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Knitter, 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: Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, S. Cobet-Nüse and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2016 (Case R 0250/2016-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG and Lotte.

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 28 October 2016 (Case R 0250/2016-5) in so far as, in that decision, the Board of Appeal upheld the opposition for ‘pastries filled with chocolate cream; chocolate; confectionery products; pastry; cookies; crackers; edible ices; pastry and confectionery’ in Class 30; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 October 2016 (Case R 0250/2016-5) in so far as, in that decision, the Board of Appeal upheld the opposition for ‘pastries filled with chocolate cream; chocolate; confectionery products; pastry; cookies; crackers; edible ices; pastry and confectionery’ in Class 30;

| 2. | Rejects the opposition brought by Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG, legal predecessor of Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH, for ‘pastries filled with chocolate cream; chocolate; confectionery products; pastry; cookies; crackers; edible ices; pastry and confectionery’ in Class 30; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rejects the opposition brought by Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG, legal predecessor of Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH, for ‘pastries filled with chocolate cream; chocolate; confectionery products; pastry; cookies; crackers; edible ices; pastry and confectionery’ in Class 30;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Lotte Co Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Lotte Co Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;

| 4. | Orders Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/47

---

Order of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission

(Case T-514/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request for access to detailed opinions issued in the course of a notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC - Documents relating to an infringement procedure - Refusal to grant access - Disclosure after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 328/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by P. Hoffman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Falk, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by B. Majczyna, M. Kamejsza-Kozłowska and B. Paziewska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission Decisions GESTDEM 2015/1291 of 12 June 2015 and of 17 July 2015 refusing to grant the applicant access to the detailed opinions delivered, respectively, by the Commission and the Republic of Malta in the course of notification procedure 2014/537/PL.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych and the European Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

| 3. | The Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Poland shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Poland shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/48

---

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions

(Case T-904/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Amicable settlement - Implementation of the agreement - [confidential] - Misuse of powers - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2018/C 328/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendants: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka and L. Camarena Januzec, Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers) and Committee of the Regions (represented by S. Bachotet and M. Antonini, Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision dated 11 May 2016 of the Secretary-General of the Committee of the Regions, in agreement with the EESC [confidential], in implementation of the amicable settlement in Case F-33/15.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Vassiliki Labiri is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Vassiliki Labiri is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/48

---

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Labiri v EESC

(Case T-256/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Amicable settlement - Performance of the agreement - Error in law - Error in assessment - Misuse of powers - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2018/C 328/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of EESC’s decision of 23 June 2016‘not to perform one paragraph of the amicable settlement reached by the parties before the Civil Service Tribunal’ in Case F-33/15 and the payment of EUR 250 000 in respect of material and non-material damage.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Vassiliki Labiri shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Vassiliki Labiri shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/49

---

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — TE v Commission

(Case T-392/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Opening of an external investigation by OLAF - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 328/66)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: TE (represented by: J. Bartončík, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and Z. Malůšková, acting as agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision to open an external investigation, led by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), [confidential], (2) relating to the applicant as person concerned and regarding [confidential].

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | TE shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

TE shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.

(2)  Confidential data omitted.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/49

---

Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — roelliroelli confectionery schweiz v EUIPO — Tanner (ALPRAUSCH)

(Case T-769/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Declaration of revocation of the opposing trade mark - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 328/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH (St. Gallen, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Overhage and R. Böhm, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: André Tanner (Schindellegi, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 August 2017 (Case R 1596/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between André Tanner and roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/50

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — GE Healthcare v Commission

(Case T-783/17 R)

((Application for interim measures - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Suspension of the marketing authorisation for contrast agents containing gadolinium for human use - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))

(2018/C 328/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GE Healthcare A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: D. Scannell, Barrister, G. Castle and S. Oryszczuk, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 7941 final of 23 November 2017, concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations for gadolinimum-containing contrast agents for human use which contain one or more of the active substances ‘gadobenic acid, gadobutrol, gadodiamide, gadopentetic acid, gadoteric acid, gadoteridol, gadoversetamide and gadoxetic acid’.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/51

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PV v Commission

(Case T-224/18 R)

((Interim measures - Civil Service - Psychological harassment - Decisions taken by the Commission following dismissal - Disciplinary proceedings - Reassignment - Setting the salary at ‘zero’ - Application for interim measures - Manifest inadmissibility of the main action - Partial inadmissibility - No prima facie case - No urgency))

(2018/C 328/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PV (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, B. Mongin and R. Striani, acting as agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, the suspension of the operation of, first, disciplinary procedure CMS 13/087, second, disciplinary procedure CMS 17/025, third, the decision to reinstate the applicant, fourth, the decision to set the applicant’s salary at zero and, on the other hand, the adoption of an interim measure assigning the applicant to the staff association ‘Generation 2004’ or to another Directorate General of the Commission.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to give a ruling on the application to suspend the operation of disciplinary procedure CMS 13/087. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to give a ruling on the application to suspend the operation of disciplinary procedure CMS 13/087.

| 2. | The application for interim measures is dismissed as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The application for interim measures is dismissed as to the remainder.

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

3.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/51

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — RATP v European Commission

(Case T-250/18 R)

((Application for interim measures - Access to documents - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

(2018/C 328/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier, I. Cohen and B. Fodda, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2018) 1865 final of 21 March 2018, Gestdem 2017/4598, relating to partial access to documents.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed;

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/52

---

Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Bax v ECB

(Case T-433/18)

(2018/C 328/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Annemieke Bax (Frankfurt, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB of 14 December 2017, rejecting the applicant’s application to benefit from the career transition support scheme put in place by the ECB; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB of 14 December 2017, rejecting the applicant’s application to benefit from the career transition support scheme put in place by the ECB;

| — | if need be, annul the ECB decision of 8 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s special appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

if need be, annul the ECB decision of 8 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s special appeal;

| — | order the ECB to pay the applicant compensation for the non-material damage suffered in the amount of EUR 20 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the applicant compensation for the non-material damage suffered in the amount of EUR 20 000;

| — | 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 infringement of the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and legal certainty.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that decision SEC/EB/X/17/398a.rev-1/final (‘General Methodology for the Practical Implementation of the Career Transition Support Scheme (CTS)’) is illegal, inter alia because it breaches Decision ECB/2017/NP 19 of 17 May 2017. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that decision SEC/EB/X/17/398a.rev-1/final (‘General Methodology for the Practical Implementation of the Career Transition Support Scheme (CTS)’) is illegal, inter alia because it breaches Decision ECB/2017/NP 19 of 17 May 2017.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to discharge its duty of care to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to discharge its duty of care to the applicant.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Directive 2006/54. (1) |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Directive 2006/54. (1)

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality owing to the application of disproportionate eligibility criteria. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality owing to the application of disproportionate eligibility criteria.

---

(1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/53

---

Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Sintokogio v EUIPO (ProAssist)

(Case T-439/18)

(2018/C 328/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sintokogio Ltd (Nagoya, Japan) (represented by: V. Dalichau, S. Kirschstein-Freund, B. Breitinger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ProAssist — Application for registration No 1 327 746

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2018 in Case R 2341/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision concerning the EU Part of International Registration 1327746; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision concerning the EU Part of International Registration 1327746;

| — | alternatively amend the contested decision concerning the EU Part of International Registration 1327746; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively amend the contested decision concerning the EU Part of International Registration 1327746;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of the Principle of equal treatment and sound administration, Article 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the Principle of equal treatment and sound administration, Article 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/53

---

Action brought on 26 July 2018 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission

(Case T-460/18)

(2018/C 328/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: eSlovensko Bratislava (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Commission, concretely the individual legal act entitled ‘Payment by offsetting by outstanding claims and debts’ issued by the European Commission, Budget execution dept. (general budget and EDF), ref. BUDG/DGA/C4/LM/24307, issued on 22 June 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission, concretely the individual legal act entitled ‘Payment by offsetting by outstanding claims and debts’ issued by the European Commission, Budget execution dept. (general budget and EDF), ref. BUDG/DGA/C4/LM/24307, issued on 22 June 2018;

| — | order the Commission to proceed to pay the eligible costs to the applicant (registered ID No. 42412439), as the original beneficiary and the contractual party of Grant Agreement INEA/CEF/ICT/A2015/1154788, Action 2015-SK-IA-0038 — ‘Slovak Safer Internet Centre IV’, in accordance with that valid and effective grant agreement, and concretely Article 4.1.3 thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to proceed to pay the eligible costs to the applicant (registered ID No. 42412439), as the original beneficiary and the contractual party of Grant Agreement INEA/CEF/ICT/A2015/1154788, Action 2015-SK-IA-0038 — ‘Slovak Safer Internet Centre IV’, in accordance with that valid and effective grant agreement, and concretely Article 4.1.3 thereof;

| — | order the Commission to reimburse the costs and expenses of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to reimburse the costs and expenses of the 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 the annulment of the contested decision on the basis of infringement of the rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties, especially improper legal evaluation of the circumstances and facts of offsetting, because the applicant (registered ID No. 42412439), according to the Plaumann principle, is directly concerned by this decision and there is a direct negative impact of the decision on it. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the annulment of the contested decision on the basis of infringement of the rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties, especially improper legal evaluation of the circumstances and facts of offsetting, because the applicant (registered ID No. 42412439), according to the Plaumann principle, is directly concerned by this decision and there is a direct negative impact of the decision on it.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission be ordered to proceed to payment of the eligible costs to the applicant as the original beneficiary and the contractual party of the grant agreement No. INEA/CEF/ICT/A2015/1154788, Action 2015-SK-IA-0038 — ‘Slovak Safer Internet Centre IV’, in accordance with the valid and effective grant agreement, concretely article 4.1.3 thereof, based on the fact that the Commission has the competence to deal with issues of project implementation and financial transfers in relation to the valid and effective contract between the Commission and the applicant.






  — | The Commission’s contested decision relies on Article 68 of the Financial regulation, (1) stating that ‘It is necessary to lay down the rules relating to the property inventory and to clarify the respective responsibilities in this field of the accounting officers and authorising officers, as well as the rules applicable to the resale of property entered in the inventory with the view to an efficient asset management.’ In this sense, the applicant underlines that the Commission had several times been informed by the applicant that the Commission’s proceedings against it had been confused with another organisation, which operated in previous projects of a similar character. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission be ordered to proceed to payment of the eligible costs to the applicant as the original beneficiary and the contractual party of the grant agreement No. INEA/CEF/ICT/A2015/1154788, Action 2015-SK-IA-0038 — ‘Slovak Safer Internet Centre IV’, in accordance with the valid and effective grant agreement, concretely article 4.1.3 thereof, based on the fact that the Commission has the competence to deal with issues of project implementation and financial transfers in relation to the valid and effective contract between the Commission and the applicant.

—

The Commission’s contested decision relies on Article 68 of the Financial regulation, (1) stating that ‘It is necessary to lay down the rules relating to the property inventory and to clarify the respective responsibilities in this field of the accounting officers and authorising officers, as well as the rules applicable to the resale of property entered in the inventory with the view to an efficient asset management.’ In this sense, the applicant underlines that the Commission had several times been informed by the applicant that the Commission’s proceedings against it had been confused with another organisation, which operated in previous projects of a similar character.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission be ordered to reimburse the costs and expenses of the proceedings. In accordance with the above-mentioned arguments and the allegedly arbitrary character of the contested decision, the applicant requests the Court to reimburse costs and expenses connected with the proceedings before it as well as the costs and expenses spent for the legal assistance in relation to the claim. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission be ordered to reimburse the costs and expenses of the proceedings. In accordance with the above-mentioned arguments and the allegedly arbitrary character of the contested decision, the applicant requests the Court to reimburse costs and expenses connected with the proceedings before it as well as the costs and expenses spent for the legal assistance in relation to the claim.

---

(1)  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).

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/54

---

Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO — Rubio Snacks (Tia Rosa)

(Case T-464/18)

(2018/C 328/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rubio Snacks, SL (Bullas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Tia Rosa — Application for registration No 14 442 883

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2018 in Case R 2739/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as the latter confirmed the opposition 002628793 upheld against European Union figurative mark No 14 442 883 Tia Rosa in relation to the following goods in Class 30:

  Cereal preparations; Tortillas; Taco chips; Tacos; Tacos; Crackers; Crackers flavoured with spices; Cereal bars; High-protein cereal bars; Cereals; Bread; Bread; Unleavened bread; Breadcrumbs; Bread rolls; Wholemeal bread; Multigrain bread; Rusks; Farinaceous foods; Snack food products consisting of cereal products; Snack food products made from maize flour; Ready to eat savory snack foods made from maize meal formed by extrusion; Snack foods made from corn; Snack foods made from wheat; Sesame snacks; Crisps made from cereals; Puffed corn snacks; Popcorn; Flavoured popcorn; The aforesaid goods expressly not including any kind of products based on potato. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as the latter confirmed the opposition 002628793 upheld against European Union figurative mark No 14 442 883 Tia Rosa in relation to the following goods in Class 30:

Cereal preparations; Tortillas; Taco chips; Tacos; Tacos; Crackers; Crackers flavoured with spices; Cereal bars; High-protein cereal bars; Cereals; Bread; Bread; Unleavened bread; Breadcrumbs; Bread rolls; Wholemeal bread; Multigrain bread; Rusks; Farinaceous foods; Snack food products consisting of cereal products; Snack food products made from maize flour; Ready to eat savory snack foods made from maize meal formed by extrusion; Snack foods made from corn; Snack foods made from wheat; Sesame snacks; Crisps made from cereals; Puffed corn snacks; Popcorn; Flavoured popcorn; The aforesaid goods expressly not including any kind of products based on potato.

| — | confirm the registration of European Union trade mark No 14 442 883 Tia Rosa for all the goods in respect of which protection is claimed; |
| --- | --- |

—

confirm the registration of European Union trade mark No 14 442 883 Tia Rosa for all the goods in respect of which protection is claimed;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings before EUIPO and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings before EUIPO and the General Court.

Plea in law

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

---

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/55

---

Action brought on 31 July 2018 — NSC Holding v EUIPO — Ibercondor Barcelona (CONDOR SERVICE, NSC)

(Case T-468/18)

(2018/C 328/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: NSC Holding GmbH & Cie. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Eichhorst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ibercondor Barcelona SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘CONDOR SERVICE, NSC’ — Application for registration No 15 292 675

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 in Case R 2440/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings;

in the alternative,

| — | order that the case be referred back to the defendant for a fresh independent review. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the case be referred back to the defendant for a fresh independent review.

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.

---