# Official Journal C 280/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 280 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6219 August 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 280

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6219 August 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2019/C 280/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2019/C 280/01

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 of the European Union |
| 2019/C 280/02 | Case C-573/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued against Daniel Adam Popławski (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decisions — Lack of direct effect — Primacy of EU law — Consequences — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 4(6) — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Article 28(2) — Declaration by a Member State allowing it to continue to apply existing legal instruments on the transfer of sentenced persons applicable before 5 December 2011 — Late declaration — Consequences) | 2 |
| 2019/C 280/03 | Case C-597/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Belgisch Syndicaat van Chiropraxie, Bart Vandendries and Others v Ministerraad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(c) — Exemptions — Medical and paramedical professions — Chiropractic and osteopathy — Article 98 — Annex III, points 3 and 4 — Medicinal products and medical devices — Reduced rate — Supply as part of therapeutic interventions or treatments — Standard rate — Supply as part of aesthetic interventions or treatments — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Maintenance of the effects of national legislation incompatible with EU law) | 3 |
| 2019/C 280/04 | Case C-723/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Lies Craeynest and Others v Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/50/EC — Articles 6, 7, 13 and 23 — Annex III — Assessment of air quality — Criteria for determining whether the nitrogen dioxide limit values have been exceeded — Measurements using fixed sampling points — Choice of appropriate sites — Interpretation of the values measured at the sampling points — Obligations of the Member States — Judicial review — Intensity of the review — Power to issue directions) | 4 |
| 2019/C 280/05 | Case C-729/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Article 49 TFEU — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 15(2) and (3) — Directive 2005/36/EC — Articles 13, 14, 50 and Annex VII — Freedom of establishment — Recognition of professional qualifications — National provisions concerning suppliers of training of mediators) | 5 |
| 2019/C 280/06 | Case C-159/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the juge de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — André Moens v Ryanair Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Scope — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Concept of extraordinary circumstances — Presence of petrol on an airport runway) | 6 |
| 2019/C 280/07 | Case C-247/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 — Italian Republic v European Commission (Appeal — European Social Fund (ESF) — Operational programme for objective No 1 for the Region of Sicily (2000-2006) — Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted — Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Article 39 — Supervisory powers — Necessary verifications — Financial corrections — Calculation — Method by extrapolation) | 7 |
| 2019/C 280/08 | Case C-348/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) (Preliminary reference — Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector — Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Second subparagraph of Article 2(1) — Establishment of the producers' contribution to the payment of the additional levy due — Reallocation of unused reference quantities — National measure reallocating unused quantities on the basis of objective priority criteria) | 7 |
| 2019/C 280/09 | Case C-407/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Slovenia) — Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for the enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the request for enforcement — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Proper interpretation) | 8 |
| 2019/C 280/10 | Case C-518/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích — Czech Republic) — RD v SC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Certification of a judicial decision as a European Enforcement Order — Minimum standards applicable to uncontested claims procedures — Defendant without a known address who did not appear at the hearing) | 9 |
| 2019/C 280/11 | Case C-619/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Rule of law — Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by Union law — Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence — Lowering of the retirement age of Supreme Court judges — Application to judges in post — Possibility of continuing to carry out the duties of judge beyond that age subject to obtaining authorisation granted by discretionary decision of the President of the Republic) | 9 |
| 2019/C 280/12 | Case C-131/18: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Law on undertakings — Combating late payment in commercial transactions — Directive 2011/7/EU — Article 6 — Compensation for recovery costs — Payment of a fixed sum and of reasonable compensation — Deduction of fixed sum from the costs of instructing a lawyer prior to bringing proceedings before a court) | 10 |
| 2019/C 280/13 | Case C-293/18: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Sindicato Nacional de CCOO de Galicia v Unión General de Trabajadores de Galicia (UGT), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Confederación Intersindical Galega (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 2 and 3 — Definition of fixed-term worker — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Comparability of situations — Justification — Compensation in the event of the termination of a permanent employment contract on an objective ground — No compensation on expiry of a fixed-term pre-doctoral employment contract) | 11 |
| 2019/C 280/14 | C-646/18: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Gerona — Spain) — OD v Ryanair (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Determination of the court having jurisdiction to hear an application for compensation in respect of a delayed flight — Article 26 — Implied prorogation — Requirement that the defendant enter an appearance) | 12 |
| 2019/C 280/15 | Case C-657/18: Order of the Court of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu — Croatia) — Hrvatska radiotelevizija v TY (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order — Notaries acting in enforcement proceedings based on an authentic document — Ex parte proceedings — Article 18 TFEU — Reverse discrimination — Lack of connection to EU law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court) | 12 |
| 2019/C 280/16 | C-834/18: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro, Juízo do Trabalho de Portimão — Juiz 1– Portugal) — Rolibérica Lda v Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Road transport — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Article 4(i) — Concept of week — Weekly rest periods — Calculation methods) | 13 |
| 2019/C 280/17 | Case C-680/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 5 (Czech Republic) lodged on 5 November 2018 — HJ v II | 14 |
| 2019/C 280/18 | Case C-739/18 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2018 by Chefaro Ireland DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2018 in Case T-905/16: Chefaro Ireland DAC v EUIPO | 14 |
| 2019/C 280/19 | Case C-819/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by Next design+produktion GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2018 in Case T-533/17, Next design+produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | 15 |
| 2019/C 280/20 | Case C-31/19 P: Appeal brought on 17 January 2019 by Seven SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2018 in Case T-339/17: Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial v EUIPO — Seven | 15 |
| 2019/C 280/21 | Case C-36/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 January 2019 by Daico International BV against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 November 2018 in Case T-356/17: Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing | 16 |
| 2019/C 280/22 | Case C-221/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku (Poland) lodged on 11 March 2019 — Criminal proceedings against AV | 16 |
| 2019/C 280/23 | Case C-222/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 8 March 2019 — BW Sp. z o.o., having its seat in B. v D.R. | 17 |
| 2019/C 280/24 | Case C-252/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 20 March 2019 — QL S.A. in B. v C.G. | 18 |
| 2019/C 280/25 | Case C-289/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 9 April 2019 — Dexia Nederland BV v Z | 18 |
| 2019/C 280/26 | Case C-314/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 16 April 2019 — R.C.C. v M.O.L. | 19 |
| 2019/C 280/27 | Case C-335/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 24 April 2019 — E. Sp. z o.o. Sp. k., having its seat in S. v Minister Finansów | 20 |
| 2019/C 280/28 | Case C-342/19 P: Appeal brought on 30 April 2019 by Fabio De Masi and Yanis Varoufakis against the judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-798/17, Fabio De Masi, Yanis Varoufakis v European Central Bank (ECB) | 20 |
| 2019/C 280/29 | Case C-356/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Delfly sp. z o.o. v Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o. | 22 |
| 2019/C 280/30 | Case C-370/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2019 — GE v Société Air France | 23 |
| 2019/C 280/31 | Case C-383/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim (Poland) lodged on 15 May 2019 — Powiat Ostrowski v Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny z siedzibą w Warszawie | 23 |
| 2019/C 280/32 | Case C-391/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 May 2019 — Unipack AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia Dunavska of the Agentsia Mitnitsi, The Public Prosecutor at the Varhovna administrativna prokuratura of the Republic of Bulgaria | 24 |
| 2019/C 280/33 | Case C-406/19 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2019 in Case T-237/17, Spain v Commission | 25 |
| 2019/C 280/34 | Case C-439/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 11 June 2019 — B v Latvijas Republikas Saeima | 25 |
| 2019/C 280/35 | Case C-450/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 13 June 2019 — Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto | 26 |
| 2019/C 280/36 | Case C-454/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Heilbronn (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against ZW | 27 |
| 2019/C 280/37 | Case C-456/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt — (Sweden) lodged on 14 June 2019 — Östgötatrafiken AB v Patent- och registreringsverket | 27 |
| 2019/C 280/38 | Case C-459/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 17 June 2019 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Wellcome Trust Ltd | 28 |
| 2019/C 280/39 | Case C-463/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de prud’hommes de Metz (France) lodged on 18 June 2019 — Syndicat CFTC du personnel de la Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle v Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de Moselle | 29 |
| 2019/C 280/40 | Case C-467/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against QR | 29 |
| 2019/C 280/41 | Case C-470/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 17 June 2019 — Friends of the Irish Environment Limited v Commissioner for Environmental Information | 30 |
| 2019/C 280/42 | Case C-472/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 20 June 2019 — Vert Marine SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances | 31 |
| 2019/C 280/43 | Case C-489/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against NJ | 31 |
| 2019/C 280/44 | Case C-50/18: Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Mijo Meštrović v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal, in the presence of: Finanzpolizei | 32 |
| 2019/C 280/45 | Case C-69/18: Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of German, French Republic | 32 |
| 2019/C 280/46 | Case C-391/18: Order of the President of the Ninth of the Court of 8 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia | 33 |
| 2019/C 280/47 | C-437/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach, VIII Wydział Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych — Poland) — Lebopoll Logistics Sp. z o.o.w Sośnicowicach v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Zabrzu, in the presence of: NJ. | 33 |
| 2019/C 280/48 | Case C-758/18: Order of the President of the Court of 5 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Bulgarian Air Charter Limited v NE | 33 |
| | General Court |
| 2019/C 280/49 | Case T-542/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Port of Tartous Loan Agreement No 22057 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default) | 34 |
| 2019/C 280/50 | Case T-543/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement No 21595 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default) | 35 |
| 2019/C 280/51 | Case T-588/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 –EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement No 80211 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default) | 36 |
| 2019/C 280/52 | Case T-589/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Aleppo-Tall Kojak Road Project Loan Agreement No 60136 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default) | 37 |
| 2019/C 280/53 | Case T-590/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement No 80212 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default) | 38 |
| 2019/C 280/54 | Case T-591/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement No 80310 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default) | 39 |
| 2019/C 280/55 | Case T-244/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Synergy Hellas v Commission (Research and technological development — Financial regulation — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — J-Web grant agreement — Enforceable decision ordering recovery — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons) | 40 |
| 2019/C 280/56 | Case T-299/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament (Public works contracts — Tendering procedure — General contractor works in the European Parliament buildings in Brussels — Rejection of the bid of one tenderer and award of the contract to other tenderers — Abnormally low tender — Action for annulment — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment) | 40 |
| 2019/C 280/57 | Case T-652/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Porus v EUIPO (oral Dialysis) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark oral Dialysis — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 41 |
| 2019/C 280/58 | Case T-306/19: Action brought on 17 May 2019 — Graanhandel P. van Schelven v Commission | 42 |
| 2019/C 280/59 | Case T-393/19: Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Catasta v Parliament | 43 |
| 2019/C 280/60 | Case T-394/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Zecchino v Parliament | 43 |
| 2019/C 280/61 | Case T-395/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Tognoli v Parliament | 44 |
| 2019/C 280/62 | Case T-396/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Allione v Parliament | 45 |
| 2019/C 280/63 | Case T-397/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Novati v Parliament | 45 |
| 2019/C 280/64 | Case T-398/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Paciotti v Parliament | 46 |
| 2019/C 280/65 | Case T-403/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Fantuzzi v Parliament | 47 |
| 2019/C 280/66 | Case T-404/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Lavarra v Parliament | 47 |
| 2019/C 280/67 | Case T-405/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Malerba v Parliament | 48 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice of the European Union

2019/C 280/02

Case C-573/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued against Daniel Adam Popławski (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decisions — Lack of direct effect — Primacy of EU law — Consequences — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 4(6) — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Article 28(2) — Declaration by a Member State allowing it to continue to apply existing legal instruments on the transfer of sentenced persons applicable before 5 December 2011 — Late declaration — Consequences)

2

2019/C 280/03

Case C-597/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Belgisch Syndicaat van Chiropraxie, Bart Vandendries and Others v Ministerraad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(c) — Exemptions — Medical and paramedical professions — Chiropractic and osteopathy — Article 98 — Annex III, points 3 and 4 — Medicinal products and medical devices — Reduced rate — Supply as part of therapeutic interventions or treatments — Standard rate — Supply as part of aesthetic interventions or treatments — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Maintenance of the effects of national legislation incompatible with EU law)

3

2019/C 280/04

Case C-723/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Lies Craeynest and Others v Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/50/EC — Articles 6, 7, 13 and 23 — Annex III — Assessment of air quality — Criteria for determining whether the nitrogen dioxide limit values have been exceeded — Measurements using fixed sampling points — Choice of appropriate sites — Interpretation of the values measured at the sampling points — Obligations of the Member States — Judicial review — Intensity of the review — Power to issue directions)

4

2019/C 280/05

Case C-729/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Article 49 TFEU — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 15(2) and (3) — Directive 2005/36/EC — Articles 13, 14, 50 and Annex VII — Freedom of establishment — Recognition of professional qualifications — National provisions concerning suppliers of training of mediators)

5

2019/C 280/06

Case C-159/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the juge de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — André Moens v Ryanair Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Scope — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Concept of extraordinary circumstances — Presence of petrol on an airport runway)

6

2019/C 280/07

Case C-247/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 — Italian Republic v European Commission (Appeal — European Social Fund (ESF) — Operational programme for objective No 1 for the Region of Sicily (2000-2006) — Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted — Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Article 39 — Supervisory powers — Necessary verifications — Financial corrections — Calculation — Method by extrapolation)

7

2019/C 280/08

Case C-348/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) (Preliminary reference — Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector — Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Second subparagraph of Article 2(1) — Establishment of the producers' contribution to the payment of the additional levy due — Reallocation of unused reference quantities — National measure reallocating unused quantities on the basis of objective priority criteria)

7

2019/C 280/09

Case C-407/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Slovenia) — Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for the enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the request for enforcement — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Proper interpretation)

8

2019/C 280/10

Case C-518/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích — Czech Republic) — RD v SC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Certification of a judicial decision as a European Enforcement Order — Minimum standards applicable to uncontested claims procedures — Defendant without a known address who did not appear at the hearing)

9

2019/C 280/11

Case C-619/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Rule of law — Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by Union law — Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence — Lowering of the retirement age of Supreme Court judges — Application to judges in post — Possibility of continuing to carry out the duties of judge beyond that age subject to obtaining authorisation granted by discretionary decision of the President of the Republic)

9

2019/C 280/12

Case C-131/18: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Law on undertakings — Combating late payment in commercial transactions — Directive 2011/7/EU — Article 6 — Compensation for recovery costs — Payment of a fixed sum and of reasonable compensation — Deduction of fixed sum from the costs of instructing a lawyer prior to bringing proceedings before a court)

10

2019/C 280/13

Case C-293/18: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Sindicato Nacional de CCOO de Galicia v Unión General de Trabajadores de Galicia (UGT), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Confederación Intersindical Galega (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 2 and 3 — Definition of fixed-term worker — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Comparability of situations — Justification — Compensation in the event of the termination of a permanent employment contract on an objective ground — No compensation on expiry of a fixed-term pre-doctoral employment contract)

11

2019/C 280/14

C-646/18: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Gerona — Spain) — OD v Ryanair (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Determination of the court having jurisdiction to hear an application for compensation in respect of a delayed flight — Article 26 — Implied prorogation — Requirement that the defendant enter an appearance)

12

2019/C 280/15

Case C-657/18: Order of the Court of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu — Croatia) — Hrvatska radiotelevizija v TY (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order — Notaries acting in enforcement proceedings based on an authentic document — Ex parte proceedings — Article 18 TFEU — Reverse discrimination — Lack of connection to EU law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

12

2019/C 280/16

C-834/18: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro, Juízo do Trabalho de Portimão — Juiz 1– Portugal) — Rolibérica Lda v Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Road transport — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Article 4(i) — Concept of week — Weekly rest periods — Calculation methods)

13

2019/C 280/17

Case C-680/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 5 (Czech Republic) lodged on 5 November 2018 — HJ v II

14

2019/C 280/18

Case C-739/18 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2018 by Chefaro Ireland DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2018 in Case T-905/16: Chefaro Ireland DAC v EUIPO

14

2019/C 280/19

Case C-819/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by Next design+produktion GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2018 in Case T-533/17, Next design+produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

15

2019/C 280/20

Case C-31/19 P: Appeal brought on 17 January 2019 by Seven SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2018 in Case T-339/17: Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial v EUIPO — Seven

15

2019/C 280/21

Case C-36/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 January 2019 by Daico International BV against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 November 2018 in Case T-356/17: Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing

16

2019/C 280/22

Case C-221/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku (Poland) lodged on 11 March 2019 — Criminal proceedings against AV

16

2019/C 280/23

Case C-222/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 8 March 2019 — BW Sp. z o.o., having its seat in B. v D.R.

17

2019/C 280/24

Case C-252/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 20 March 2019 — QL S.A. in B. v C.G.

18

2019/C 280/25

Case C-289/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 9 April 2019 — Dexia Nederland BV v Z

18

2019/C 280/26

Case C-314/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 16 April 2019 — R.C.C. v M.O.L.

19

2019/C 280/27

Case C-335/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 24 April 2019 — E. Sp. z o.o. Sp. k., having its seat in S. v Minister Finansów

20

2019/C 280/28

Case C-342/19 P: Appeal brought on 30 April 2019 by Fabio De Masi and Yanis Varoufakis against the judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-798/17, Fabio De Masi, Yanis Varoufakis v European Central Bank (ECB)

20

2019/C 280/29

Case C-356/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Delfly sp. z o.o. v Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.

22

2019/C 280/30

Case C-370/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2019 — GE v Société Air France

23

2019/C 280/31

Case C-383/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim (Poland) lodged on 15 May 2019 — Powiat Ostrowski v Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny z siedzibą w Warszawie

23

2019/C 280/32

Case C-391/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 May 2019 — Unipack AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia Dunavska of the Agentsia Mitnitsi, The Public Prosecutor at the Varhovna administrativna prokuratura of the Republic of Bulgaria

24

2019/C 280/33

Case C-406/19 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2019 in Case T-237/17, Spain v Commission

25

2019/C 280/34

Case C-439/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 11 June 2019 — B v Latvijas Republikas Saeima

25

2019/C 280/35

Case C-450/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 13 June 2019 — Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto

26

2019/C 280/36

Case C-454/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Heilbronn (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against ZW

27

2019/C 280/37

Case C-456/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt — (Sweden) lodged on 14 June 2019 — Östgötatrafiken AB v Patent- och registreringsverket

27

2019/C 280/38

Case C-459/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 17 June 2019 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Wellcome Trust Ltd

28

2019/C 280/39

Case C-463/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de prud’hommes de Metz (France) lodged on 18 June 2019 — Syndicat CFTC du personnel de la Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle v Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de Moselle

29

2019/C 280/40

Case C-467/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against QR

29

2019/C 280/41

Case C-470/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 17 June 2019 — Friends of the Irish Environment Limited v Commissioner for Environmental Information

30

2019/C 280/42

Case C-472/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 20 June 2019 — Vert Marine SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

31

2019/C 280/43

Case C-489/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against NJ

31

2019/C 280/44

Case C-50/18: Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Mijo Meštrović v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal, in the presence of: Finanzpolizei

32

2019/C 280/45

Case C-69/18: Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of German, French Republic

32

2019/C 280/46

Case C-391/18: Order of the President of the Ninth of the Court of 8 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia

33

2019/C 280/47

C-437/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach, VIII Wydział Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych — Poland) — Lebopoll Logistics Sp. z o.o.w Sośnicowicach v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Zabrzu, in the presence of: NJ.

33

2019/C 280/48

Case C-758/18: Order of the President of the Court of 5 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Bulgarian Air Charter Limited v NE

33

General Court

2019/C 280/49

Case T-542/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Port of Tartous Loan Agreement No 22057 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

34

2019/C 280/50

Case T-543/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement No 21595 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

35

2019/C 280/51

Case T-588/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 –EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement No 80211 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

36

2019/C 280/52

Case T-589/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Aleppo-Tall Kojak Road Project Loan Agreement No 60136 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

37

2019/C 280/53

Case T-590/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement No 80212 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

38

2019/C 280/54

Case T-591/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement No 80310 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

39

2019/C 280/55

Case T-244/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Synergy Hellas v Commission (Research and technological development — Financial regulation — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — J-Web grant agreement — Enforceable decision ordering recovery — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

40

2019/C 280/56

Case T-299/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament (Public works contracts — Tendering procedure — General contractor works in the European Parliament buildings in Brussels — Rejection of the bid of one tenderer and award of the contract to other tenderers — Abnormally low tender — Action for annulment — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

40

2019/C 280/57

Case T-652/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Porus v EUIPO (oral Dialysis) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark oral Dialysis — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

41

2019/C 280/58

Case T-306/19: Action brought on 17 May 2019 — Graanhandel P. van Schelven v Commission

42

2019/C 280/59

Case T-393/19: Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Catasta v Parliament

43

2019/C 280/60

Case T-394/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Zecchino v Parliament

43

2019/C 280/61

Case T-395/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Tognoli v Parliament

44

2019/C 280/62

Case T-396/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Allione v Parliament

45

2019/C 280/63

Case T-397/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Novati v Parliament

45

2019/C 280/64

Case T-398/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Paciotti v Parliament

46

2019/C 280/65

Case T-403/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Fantuzzi v Parliament

47

2019/C 280/66

Case T-404/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Lavarra v Parliament

47

2019/C 280/67

Case T-405/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Malerba v Parliament

48

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/1

---

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

(2019/C 280/01)

Last publication

OJ C 270, 12.8.2019

Past publications

OJ C 263, 5.8.2019

OJ C 255, 29.7.2019

OJ C 246, 22.7.2019

OJ C 238, 15.7.2019

OJ C 230, 8.7.2019

OJ C 220, 1.7.2019

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued against Daniel Adam Popławski

(Case C-573/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decisions - Lack of direct effect - Primacy of EU law - Consequences - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 4(6) - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Article 28(2) - Declaration by a Member State allowing it to continue to apply existing legal instruments on the transfer of sentenced persons applicable before 5 December 2011 - Late declaration - Consequences)

(2019/C 280/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party to the main proceedings

Daniel Adam Popławski

Other party: Openbaar Ministerie

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 28(2) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a declaration made pursuant to that provision by a Member State, after that framework decision was adopted, is not capable of producing legal effects. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 28(2) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a declaration made pursuant to that provision by a Member State, after that framework decision was adopted, is not capable of producing legal effects.

| 2. | The principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a national court to disapply a provision of national law which is incompatible with the provisions of a framework decision, such as the framework decisions at issue in the main proceedings, the legal effects of which are preserved in accordance with Article 9 of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, annexed to the treaties, since those provisions do not have direct effect. The authorities of the Member States, including the courts, are nevertheless required to interpret their national law, to the greatest extent possible, in conformity with EU law, which enables them to ensure an outcome that is compatible with the objective pursued by the framework decision concerned. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a national court to disapply a provision of national law which is incompatible with the provisions of a framework decision, such as the framework decisions at issue in the main proceedings, the legal effects of which are preserved in accordance with Article 9 of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, annexed to the treaties, since those provisions do not have direct effect. The authorities of the Member States, including the courts, are nevertheless required to interpret their national law, to the greatest extent possible, in conformity with EU law, which enables them to ensure an outcome that is compatible with the objective pursued by the framework decision concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Belgisch Syndicaat van Chiropraxie, Bart Vandendries and Others v Ministerraad

(Case C-597/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(c) - Exemptions - Medical and paramedical professions - Chiropractic and osteopathy - Article 98 - Annex III, points 3 and 4 - Medicinal products and medical devices - Reduced rate - Supply as part of therapeutic interventions or treatments - Standard rate - Supply as part of aesthetic interventions or treatments - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Maintenance of the effects of national legislation incompatible with EU law)

(2019/C 280/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Belgisch Syndicaat van Chiropraxie, Bart Vandendries and Others Plast.Surg. and Others, Belgian Society for Private Clinics and Others

Defendant: Ministerraad

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not restricting the application of the exemption it provides to supplies provided by practitioners of a medical or paramedical profession regulated by the legislation of the Member State concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not restricting the application of the exemption it provides to supplies provided by practitioners of a medical or paramedical profession regulated by the legislation of the Member State concerned.

| 2) | Article 98 of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with points (3) and (4) to Annex III to that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which differentiates between medicinal products and medical devices supplied in the context of therapeutic interventions or treatments, on the one hand, and medicinal products and medical devices supplied in the context of interventions or treatments intended exclusively for aesthetic purposes, on the other hand, by excluding the latter from the benefit of the reduced rate of value added tax (VAT) applicable to the former. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 98 of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with points (3) and (4) to Annex III to that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which differentiates between medicinal products and medical devices supplied in the context of therapeutic interventions or treatments, on the one hand, and medicinal products and medical devices supplied in the context of interventions or treatments intended exclusively for aesthetic purposes, on the other hand, by excluding the latter from the benefit of the reduced rate of value added tax (VAT) applicable to the former.

| 3) | In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a national court may not make use of a national provision empowering it to maintain certain effects of a measure which has been annulled in order to maintain temporarily the effect of national provisions which it has found incompatible with Directive 2006/112 until they are made to comply with that directive, with a view, on the one hand, to limiting the risks of legal uncertainty resulting from the retroactive effect of that annulment and, on the other hand, to avoiding the application of a national regime predating those provisions and which is incompatible with that directive. |
| --- | --- |

3)

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a national court may not make use of a national provision empowering it to maintain certain effects of a measure which has been annulled in order to maintain temporarily the effect of national provisions which it has found incompatible with Directive 2006/112 until they are made to comply with that directive, with a view, on the one hand, to limiting the risks of legal uncertainty resulting from the retroactive effect of that annulment and, on the other hand, to avoiding the application of a national regime predating those provisions and which is incompatible with that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 427 of 26.11.2018

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Lies Craeynest and Others v Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer

(Case C-723/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/50/EC - Articles 6, 7, 13 and 23 - Annex III - Assessment of air quality - Criteria for determining whether the nitrogen dioxide limit values have been exceeded - Measurements using fixed sampling points - Choice of appropriate sites - Interpretation of the values measured at the sampling points - Obligations of the Member States - Judicial review - Intensity of the review - Power to issue directions)

(2019/C 280/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Lies Craeynest, Cristina Lopez Devaux, Frédéric Mertens, Stefan Vandereulen, Karin De Schepper, ClientEarth VZW

Defendants: Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer

Other party: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4(3) TEU and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, and Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe must be interpreted as meaning that it is for a national court, hearing an application submitted for that purpose by individuals directly affected by the exceedance of the limit values referred to in Article 13(1) of that directive, to verify whether the sampling points located in a particular zone have been established in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraph 1(a) of Section B of Annex III to the directive and, if they were not, to take all necessary measures in respect of the competent national authority, such as, if provided for by national law, an order, with a view to ensuring that those sampling points are sited in accordance with those criteria. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(3) TEU and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, and Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe must be interpreted as meaning that it is for a national court, hearing an application submitted for that purpose by individuals directly affected by the exceedance of the limit values referred to in Article 13(1) of that directive, to verify whether the sampling points located in a particular zone have been established in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraph 1(a) of Section B of Annex III to the directive and, if they were not, to take all necessary measures in respect of the competent national authority, such as, if provided for by national law, an order, with a view to ensuring that those sampling points are sited in accordance with those criteria.

| 2. | Article 13(1) and Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether a limit value with an averaging period of one calendar year, as laid down in Annex XI to that directive, has been exceeded, it is sufficient that a pollution level higher than that value be measured at a single sampling point. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 13(1) and Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether a limit value with an averaging period of one calendar year, as laid down in Annex XI to that directive, has been exceeded, it is sufficient that a pollution level higher than that value be measured at a single sampling point.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-729/17) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Article 49 TFEU - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 15(2) and (3) - Directive 2005/36/EC - Articles 13, 14, 50 and Annex VII - Freedom of establishment - Recognition of professional qualifications - National provisions concerning suppliers of training of mediators)

(2019/C 280/05)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

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

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Tassopoulou, D. Tsagkaraki and Ch. Machairas, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that:-






  — | by restricting the legal form of mediation training service providers to non-profit companies, which have to be set up jointly by at least one association of lawyers and at least one Professional Chamber in Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2)(b) and (c) and Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that:-

—

by restricting the legal form of mediation training service providers to non-profit companies, which have to be set up jointly by at least one association of lawyers and at least one Professional Chamber in Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2)(b) and (c) and Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market; and

| — | by subjecting the procedure for the recognition of academic qualifications to the imposition of additional requirements related to the content of certificates required and to compensatory measures without a prior assessment of substantial differences from national training, and by maintaining in force discriminatory provisions which require applicants for accreditation as mediators who have accreditation that was obtained outside Greece or from a recognised provider of training outside Greece following training provided in Greece, to prove experience of having taken part in at least three mediation procedures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13, 14 and 50(1) of, and Annex VII to, Directive 2005/36/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005, on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 November 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

by subjecting the procedure for the recognition of academic qualifications to the imposition of additional requirements related to the content of certificates required and to compensatory measures without a prior assessment of substantial differences from national training, and by maintaining in force discriminatory provisions which require applicants for accreditation as mediators who have accreditation that was obtained outside Greece or from a recognised provider of training outside Greece following training provided in Greece, to prove experience of having taken part in at least three mediation procedures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13, 14 and 50(1) of, and Annex VII to, Directive 2005/36/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005, on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 November 2013;

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

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the juge de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — André Moens v Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-159/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Scope - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Presence of petrol on an airport runway)

(2019/C 280/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Juge de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: André Moens

Defendant: Ryanair Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read in the light of recitals 14 and 25 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the presence of petrol on a runway of an airport which led to its closure and, consequently, the long delay of a flight to or from that airport, falls within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, when the petrol in question does not originate from an aircraft of the carrier that operated that flight. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read in the light of recitals 14 and 25 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the presence of petrol on a runway of an airport which led to its closure and, consequently, the long delay of a flight to or from that airport, falls within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, when the petrol in question does not originate from an aircraft of the carrier that operated that flight.

| 2. | Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recitals 14 and 15 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the presence of petrol on a runway of an airport which has led to the closure of that runway, the nature of which is established as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, must be regarded as a circumstance which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recitals 14 and 15 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the presence of petrol on a runway of an airport which has led to the closure of that runway, the nature of which is established as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, must be regarded as a circumstance which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 — Italian Republic v European Commission

(Case C-247/18) (1)

(Appeal - European Social Fund (ESF) - Operational programme for objective No 1 for the Region of Sicily (2000-2006) - Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Article 39 - Supervisory powers - Necessary verifications - Financial corrections - Calculation - Method by extrapolation)

(2019/C 280/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Other Party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Operative part

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

(Case C-348/18) (1)

(Preliminary reference - Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector - Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 - Second subparagraph of Article 2(1) - Establishment of the producers' contribution to the payment of the additional levy due - Reallocation of unused reference quantities - National measure reallocating unused quantities on the basis of objective priority criteria)

(2019/C 280/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice

Defendant: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

In the presence of: Comitato Spontaneo Produttori Latte (COSPLAT), Società Agricola Galleana — Società semplice, VS and Others

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999 of 17 May 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State decides to reallocate unused reference quantities, that reallocation must be made between producers who have exceeded their reference quantities, in proportion to the reference quantities at their disposal.

---

(1)  OJ C 394, 20.8.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Slovenia) — Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.

(Case C-407/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Proceedings for the enforcement of a mortgage claim - Directly enforceable notarial instrument - Judicial review of unfair terms - Suspension of enforcement - Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the request for enforcement - Consumer protection - Principle of effectiveness - Proper interpretation)

(2019/C 280/09)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar

Defendants: Addiko Bank d.d.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted, in the light of the principle of effectiveness, as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the national court hearing an application for the enforcement of a mortgage loan agreement, concluded between a trader and a consumer in the form of a directly enforceable notarial deed, does not have the possibility, either at the request of the consumer or ex officio, of examining whether the terms contained in such a deed are unfair within the meaning of that Directive and, on that basis, of suspending the requested enforcement.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích — Czech Republic) — RD v SC

(Case C-518/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Certification of a judicial decision as a European Enforcement Order - Minimum standards applicable to uncontested claims procedures - Defendant without a known address who did not appear at the hearing)

(2019/C 280/10)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RD

Defendant: SC

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that, where a court is unable to obtain the defendant’s address, it does not allow a judicial decision relating to a debt, made following a hearing attended by neither the defendant nor the guardian ad litem appointed for the purpose of the proceedings, to be certified as a European Enforcement Order.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-619/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Rule of law - Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by Union law - Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence - Lowering of the retirement age of Supreme Court judges - Application to judges in post - Possibility of continuing to carry out the duties of judge beyond that age subject to obtaining authorisation granted by discretionary decision of the President of the Republic)

(2019/C 280/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, H. Krämer and S.L. Kalėda, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, K. Majcher and S. Żyrek)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, first, by providing that the measure consisting in lowering the retirement age of the judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) is to apply to judges in post who were appointed to that court before 3 April 2018 and, secondly, by granting the President of the Republic the discretion to extend the period of judicial activity of judges of that court beyond the newly fixed retirement age, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, first, by providing that the measure consisting in lowering the retirement age of the judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) is to apply to judges in post who were appointed to that court before 3 April 2018 and, secondly, by granting the President of the Republic the discretion to extend the period of judicial activity of judges of that court beyond the newly fixed retirement age, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU;

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

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs;

| 3. | Declares that Hungary is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that Hungary is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/10

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler

(Case C-131/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Law on undertakings - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Directive 2011/7/EU - Article 6 - Compensation for recovery costs - Payment of a fixed sum and of reasonable compensation - Deduction of fixed sum from the costs of instructing a lawyer prior to bringing proceedings before a court)

(2019/C 280/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vanessa Gambietz

Defendant: Erika Ziegler

Operative part of the order

Article 6(3) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted to mean that the fixed sum of EUR 40, to which the creditor is entitled pursuant to Article 6(1) of that directive, must be deducted from the reasonable compensation provided for in Article 6(3) thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/11

---

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Sindicato Nacional de CCOO de Galicia v Unión General de Trabajadores de Galicia (UGT), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Confederación Intersindical Galega

(Case C-293/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 2 and 3 - Definition of ‘fixed-term worker’ - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Comparability of situations - Justification - Compensation in the event of the termination of a permanent employment contract on an objective ground - No compensation on expiry of a fixed-term pre-doctoral employment contract)

(2019/C 280/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sindicato Nacional de CCOO de Galicia

Defendant: Unión General de Trabajadores de Galicia (UGT), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Confederación Intersindical Gallega

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, in particular Clause 2(1) and Clause 3(1), must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to workers such as the personnel employed under the pre-doctoral contracts at issue in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, in particular Clause 2(1) and Clause 3(1), must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to workers such as the personnel employed under the pre-doctoral contracts at issue in the main proceedings.

| 2. | Clause 4(1) of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not provide for any compensation to be paid to workers employed under pre-doctoral contracts, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, upon expiry of those contracts, even where compensation is payable to permanent workers when their employment contract is terminated on objective grounds. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Clause 4(1) of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not provide for any compensation to be paid to workers employed under pre-doctoral contracts, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, upon expiry of those contracts, even where compensation is payable to permanent workers when their employment contract is terminated on objective grounds.

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/12

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Gerona — Spain) — OD v Ryanair

(C-646/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Determination of the court having jurisdiction to hear an application for compensation in respect of a delayed flight - Article 26 - Implied prorogation - Requirement that the defendant enter an appearance)

(2019/C 280/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Gerona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OD

Defendant: Ryanair D.A.C.

Operative part of the order

Article 26(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in a case, such as that in the main proceedings, where the defendant has not submitted observations and has not appeared.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/12

---

Order of the Court of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu — Croatia) — Hrvatska radiotelevizija v TY

(Case C-657/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order - Notaries acting in enforcement proceedings based on an authentic document - Ex parte proceedings - Article 18 TFEU - Reverse discrimination - Lack of connection to EU law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2019/C 280/15)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hrvatska radiotelevizija

Defendant: TY

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu (Municipal Court, New Zagreb, Croatia).

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/13

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro, Juízo do Trabalho de Portimão — Juiz 1– Portugal) — Rolibérica Lda v Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho

(C-834/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 4(i) - Concept of ‘week’ - Weekly rest periods - Calculation methods)

(2019/C 280/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro, Juízo do Trabalho de Portimão — Juiz 1

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rolibérica Lda

Defendant: Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho

Operative part of the order

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, must be interpreted as meaning that ‘weekly rest period’, within the meaning of Article 8 of that regulation must not necessarily end in the course of the ‘week’, as defined in Article 4(i) of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 5 (Czech Republic) lodged on 5 November 2018 — HJ v II

(Case C-680/18)

(2019/C 280/17)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 5

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HJ

Defendant: II

By order of 11 April 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the request for a preliminary ruling was inadmissible.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/14

---

Appeal brought on 28 November 2018 by Chefaro Ireland DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2018 in Case T-905/16: Chefaro Ireland DAC v EUIPO

(Case C-739/18 P)

(2019/C 280/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Chefaro Ireland DAC (represented by: P. Maeyaert, J. Muyldermans, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 2 May 2019 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/15

---

Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by Next design+produktion GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2018 in Case T-533/17, Next design+produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-819/18 P)

(2019/C 280/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Next design+produktion GmbH (represented by: M. Hirsch, Rechtsanwalt, M. Metzner, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG

By order of 11 July 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/15

---

Appeal brought on 17 January 2019 by Seven SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2018 in Case T-339/17: Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial v EUIPO — Seven

(Case C-31/19 P)

(2019/C 280/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Seven SpA (represented by: L. Trevisan, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 2 July 2019 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/16

---

Appeal brought on 21 January 2019 by Daico International BV against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 November 2018 in Case T-356/17: Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing

(Case C-36/19 P)

(2019/C 280/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Daico International BV (represented by: M. F. J. Haak, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 4 July 2019 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku (Poland) lodged on 11 March 2019 — Criminal proceedings against AV

(Case C-221/19)

(2019/C 280/22)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku

Party to the main proceedings

AV

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings, (1) which provides that the taking into account of previous convictions handed down in other Member States, as provided for in paragraph 1, shall not have the effect of interfering with, revoking or reviewing previous convictions or any decision relating to their execution by the Member State conducting the new proceedings, be interpreted as meaning that interference for the purposes of that provision is to be taken to mean not only the inclusion in an aggregate sentence of a conviction handed down by a judgment delivered in a State of the European Union but also the inclusion in the aggregate sentence of such a conviction which was taken over for execution in another State of the European Union, together with a conviction handed down in the latter State, within the framework of the aggregate sentence? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings, (1) which provides that the taking into account of previous convictions handed down in other Member States, as provided for in paragraph 1, shall not have the effect of interfering with, revoking or reviewing previous convictions or any decision relating to their execution by the Member State conducting the new proceedings, be interpreted as meaning that interference for the purposes of that provision is to be taken to mean not only the inclusion in an aggregate sentence of a conviction handed down by a judgment delivered in a State of the European Union but also the inclusion in the aggregate sentence of such a conviction which was taken over for execution in another State of the European Union, together with a conviction handed down in the latter State, within the framework of the aggregate sentence?

| 2. | In light of the provisions of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (2) which are laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) thereof and concern the principles of the exequatur procedure, and also in the light of Article 19(1) and (2) thereof — which provides that an amnesty or pardon may be granted by the issuing State and also by the executing State (paragraph 1); only the issuing State may decide on applications for review of the judgment imposing the sentence to be enforced under this Framework Decision (paragraph 2) — and of the first sentence of Article 17(1) thereof — which provides that the enforcement of a sentence is to be governed by the law of the executing State — is it possible to pass an aggregate sentence which would include the sentences imposed by a judgment delivered in a State of the European Union that was taken over for execution in another State of the European Union, together with a conviction handed down in the latter State, within the framework of the aggregate sentence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In light of the provisions of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (2) which are laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) thereof and concern the principles of the exequatur procedure, and also in the light of Article 19(1) and (2) thereof — which provides that an amnesty or pardon may be granted by the issuing State and also by the executing State (paragraph 1); only the issuing State may decide on applications for review of the judgment imposing the sentence to be enforced under this Framework Decision (paragraph 2) — and of the first sentence of Article 17(1) thereof — which provides that the enforcement of a sentence is to be governed by the law of the executing State — is it possible to pass an aggregate sentence which would include the sentences imposed by a judgment delivered in a State of the European Union that was taken over for execution in another State of the European Union, together with a conviction handed down in the latter State, within the framework of the aggregate sentence?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 220, p. 32.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 8 March 2019 — BW Sp. z o.o., having its seat in B. v D.R.

(Case C-222/19)

(2019/C 280/23)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BW Sp. z o.o., having its seat in B.

Defendant: D.R.

Question referred

Must the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Article 3(1) of that directive, and the principles of EU law concerning consumer protection and the balance between contracting parties be interpreted as precluding the introduction into national law of the concept of ‘maximum non-interest credit costs’ and the mathematical formula for calculating those costs set out in Article 5(6a), in conjunction with Article 36a, of the Ustawa o kredycie konsumenckim (Law on Consumer Credit) of 12 May 2011 (consolidated text: Dziennik Ustaw of 2018, item 993), which allow the costs of the business activity of a seller or supplier to be included in the costs related to a credit agreement that are to be borne by the consumer (the total cost of the credit)?

---

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

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 20 March 2019 — QL S.A. in B. v C.G.

(Case C-252/19)

(2019/C 280/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: QL S.A. in B.

Defendant: C.G.

Question referred

Must the provisions of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (1) and in particular Article 3(g) and Article 22(1) of that directive, be interpreted as precluding the introduction into national law of the concept of ‘maximum non-interest credit costs’ and the mathematical formula for calculating those costs set out in Article 5(6)(a) in conjunction with Article 36a of the Ustawa o kredycie konsumenckim z dnia 12 maja 2011 r. (Law of 12 May 2011 on Consumer Credit, consolidated text: Journal of Laws [Dz. U.] of 2018, item 993), which allow the costs of the business activity of a seller or supplier to be included in the costs related to a credit agreement that are to be borne by the consumer (the total costs of the credit)?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 9 April 2019 — Dexia Nederland BV v Z

(Case C-289/19)

(2019/C 280/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dexia Nederland BV

Respondent: Z

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the user of an unfair term relating to the payment of compensation in the event of a consumer’s non-compliance with his obligations, which has been declared void, claim the legal compensation provided for by way of supplementary law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the user of an unfair term relating to the payment of compensation in the event of a consumer’s non-compliance with his obligations, which has been declared void, claim the legal compensation provided for by way of supplementary law?

| 2. | For the purpose of answering that question, does it matter whether the compensation that can be claimed by the application of the statutory compensation scheme is equal to or lower or higher than the compensation under the term which has been declared void? |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the purpose of answering that question, does it matter whether the compensation that can be claimed by the application of the statutory compensation scheme is equal to or lower or higher than the compensation under the term which has been declared void?

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 16 April 2019 — R.C.C. v M.O.L.

(Case C-314/19)

(2019/C 280/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: R.C.C.

Respondent: M.O.L.

Question referred

Does Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, (1) and therefore the content of the directive, apply to a case in which a Notary, a public official who, in turn, is the private employer of the staff working for him, that relationship as employer being governed by general employment law and by the sectoral collective agreement, who replaces the previous departing Notary, taking over his Protocol, and who continues to provide that service at the same workplace, with the same material facilities, and who takes on the staff who worked for the previous Notary who ran that practice?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 24 April 2019 — E. Sp. z o.o. Sp. k., having its seat in S. v Minister Finansów

(Case C-335/19)

(2019/C 280/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E. Sp. z o.o. Sp. k., having its seat in S.

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) — and in particular Article 90(2) thereof — having regard to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, permit the introduction into national law of a restriction on the ability to reduce the taxable amount in the event of partial or total non-payment by reason of the specific tax status of the debtor and the creditor? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) — and in particular Article 90(2) thereof — having regard to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, permit the introduction into national law of a restriction on the ability to reduce the taxable amount in the event of partial or total non-payment by reason of the specific tax status of the debtor and the creditor?

| 2. | In particular, does EU law not preclude the introduction of a rule in national legislation which provides for the option of taking advantage of ‘bad debt relief’ only on condition that on the date on which the service or goods are supplied and on the day preceding the date on which the tax return adjustment is filed in order to benefit from this relief:






  — | the debtor is not subject to insolvency or liquidation proceedings? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

In particular, does EU law not preclude the introduction of a rule in national legislation which provides for the option of taking advantage of ‘bad debt relief’ only on condition that on the date on which the service or goods are supplied and on the day preceding the date on which the tax return adjustment is filed in order to benefit from this relief:

—

the debtor is not subject to insolvency or liquidation proceedings?

| — | the creditor and debtor are both registered as active VAT taxpayers? |
| --- | --- |

—

the creditor and debtor are both registered as active VAT taxpayers?

---

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

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/20

---

Appeal brought on 30 April 2019 by Fabio De Masi and Yanis Varoufakis against the judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-798/17, Fabio De Masi, Yanis Varoufakis v European Central Bank (ECB)

(Case C-342/19 P)

(2019/C 280/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Fabio de Masi, Yanis Varoufakis (represented by: Professor Dr. A. Fischer-Lescano, University professor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| 1. | Set aside in its entirety the judgment in Case T-798/17 and uphold the application at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Set aside in its entirety the judgment in Case T-798/17 and uphold the application at first instance.

| 2. | Order the respondent to pay the costs of the dispute in accordance with Article 184 in conjunction with Article 137 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the respondent to pay the costs of the dispute in accordance with Article 184 in conjunction with Article 137 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

At first instance, the appellants sought a declaration of invalidity under Article 263(4) TFEU of the decision of the ECB of 16 October 2017 by which access to the document of 23 April 2015 with the title ‘Answers to the question of the interpretation of Article 14.4 of the Protocol on the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB’ was refused to them.

In support of the first head of claim, the appellants put forward four grounds:

| 1. | Failure to have regard for the primary law principle of transparency laid down in Article 15(1) TFEU, Article 10(3) TEU and Article 298(1) TFEU as well as of Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The judgment under appeal disregards the fact that the requirement for transparency derives not only from secondary law, but that that secondary law must be interpreted in accordance with the transparency requirement under primary law. As a result, the Court unlawfully withdraws judicial review of the transparency requirement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Failure to have regard for the primary law principle of transparency laid down in Article 15(1) TFEU, Article 10(3) TEU and Article 298(1) TFEU as well as of Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The judgment under appeal disregards the fact that the requirement for transparency derives not only from secondary law, but that that secondary law must be interpreted in accordance with the transparency requirement under primary law. As a result, the Court unlawfully withdraws judicial review of the transparency requirement.

| 2. | Failure to have regard for the importance of the obligation to state reasons and the corresponding standards developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The judgment of the Court fails to have regard for the fact that the contested decision of the ECB entirely fails to set out the specific prejudice to the ECB. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Failure to have regard for the importance of the obligation to state reasons and the corresponding standards developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The judgment of the Court fails to have regard for the fact that the contested decision of the ECB entirely fails to set out the specific prejudice to the ECB.

| 3. | Failure to have regard for the connection between Article 4(3) of Decision 2004/258/EC (1) (Transparency exceptions: opinions for internal use) and Article 4(2) of that decision (Transparency exceptions: legal communications). The Court fails to have regard for the lex specialis nature of Article 4(2) of the abovementioned decision in relation to legal opinions and the fact that Article 4(3) of that decision is not applicable to abstract legal advice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Failure to have regard for the connection between Article 4(3) of Decision 2004/258/EC (1) (Transparency exceptions: opinions for internal use) and Article 4(2) of that decision (Transparency exceptions: legal communications). The Court fails to have regard for the lex specialis nature of Article 4(2) of the abovementioned decision in relation to legal opinions and the fact that Article 4(3) of that decision is not applicable to abstract legal advice.

| 4. | The judgment under appeal in general unlawfully denies an overriding public interest in the publication of the document for the purposes of Article 4(3) of the abovementioned decision.
  The application for costs is made in accordance with Article 184 in conjunction with Article 137 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The judgment under appeal in general unlawfully denies an overriding public interest in the publication of the document for the purposes of Article 4(3) of the abovementioned decision.

The application for costs is made in accordance with Article 184 in conjunction with Article 137 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42).

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Delfly sp. z o.o. v Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.

(Case C-356/19)

(2019/C 280/29)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delfly sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) be interpreted as governing not only the scope of the obligation to pay compensation but also the manner in which that obligation is to be discharged? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) be interpreted as governing not only the scope of the obligation to pay compensation but also the manner in which that obligation is to be discharged?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can a passenger or his legal successor effectively demand the payment of the equivalent of EUR 400 in another currency, including, in particular, the national currency of the place of residence of the passenger whose flight was cancelled or delayed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can a passenger or his legal successor effectively demand the payment of the equivalent of EUR 400 in another currency, including, in particular, the national currency of the place of residence of the passenger whose flight was cancelled or delayed?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, what criteria should be used to determine the currency in which the passenger or his legal successor may demand payment, and what exchange rate should be applied? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, what criteria should be used to determine the currency in which the passenger or his legal successor may demand payment, and what exchange rate should be applied?

| 4. | Do Article 7(1) or other provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 preclude the application of provisions of national law concerning the performance of obligations which result in the dismissal of an action brought by a passenger or his legal successor on the sole ground that the claim incorrectly indicated the national currency of the passenger’s place of residence rather than the Euro in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do Article 7(1) or other provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 preclude the application of provisions of national law concerning the performance of obligations which result in the dismissal of an action brought by a passenger or his legal successor on the sole ground that the claim incorrectly indicated the national currency of the passenger’s place of residence rather than the Euro in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Regulation?

---

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

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2019 — GE v Société Air France

(Case C-370/19)

(2019/C 280/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GE

Defendant: Société Air France

Question referred

Does a trade union organised strike by the staff of an operating air carrier constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim (Poland) lodged on 15 May 2019 — Powiat Ostrowski v Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny z siedzibą w Warszawie

(Case C-383/19)

(2019/C 280/31)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Powiat Ostrowski

Defendant: Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny z siedzibą w Warszawie

Questions referred

| 1) | Must Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to take out civil liability motor insurance extends even to situations in which a local government authority — a district — has acquired, on the basis of a court decision, title to a vehicle which is not capable of being driven, is on private property in the form of a guarded car park not on the public highway, and is to be destroyed in accordance with the wishes of its owner? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Must Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to take out civil liability motor insurance extends even to situations in which a local government authority — a district — has acquired, on the basis of a court decision, title to a vehicle which is not capable of being driven, is on private property in the form of a guarded car park not on the public highway, and is to be destroyed in accordance with the wishes of its owner?

| 2) | Or must it be interpreted as meaning that, in such circumstances, the local government authority, as the owner of the vehicle, is not obliged to take out insurance, without prejudice to the liability of the fund towards injured third parties? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Or must it be interpreted as meaning that, in such circumstances, the local government authority, as the owner of the vehicle, is not obliged to take out insurance, without prejudice to the liability of the fund towards injured third parties?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 May 2019 — ‘Unipack’ AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia ‘Dunavska’ of the Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’, The Public Prosecutor at the Varhovna administrativna prokuratura of the Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-391/19)

(2019/C 280/32)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law:‘Unipack’ AD

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia ‘Dunavska’ of the Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’, The Public Prosecutor at the Varhovna administrativna prokuratura of the Republic of Bulgaria

Question referred

Does it constitute exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 172(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (1) of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code, which would provide a basis for the granting of authorisation with retroactive effect pursuant to Article 211(2) of the Union Customs Code for the use of the end-use customs procedure pursuant to Article 254 of the Union Customs Code in relation to an import of products that took place before the date of acceptance of the application for authorisation and after the expiry of the validity of a BTI decision in favour of the holder of the procedure for those products due to an amendment to the Combined Nomenclature, if, in the period (of approximately 10 months) between the expiry of the validity of the BTI decision and the import for which the use of the end-use procedure was requested, several (nine) imports of products were made without the customs authorities having corrected the declared Combined Nomenclature code, and the goods were used for a purpose exempted from the anti-dumping duty?

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 343, p. 1.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/25

---

Appeal brought on 24 May 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2019 in Case T-237/17, Spain v Commission

(Case C-406/19 P)

(2019/C 280/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and J. Aquilina, acting as agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should set aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal and dismiss the action at first instance or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court.

Single ground of appeal

The General Court erred in law in its allocation of the burden of proof in the context of the application of flat-rate corrections pursuant to Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008. (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 11 June 2019 — B v Latvijas Republikas Saeima

(Case C-439/19)

(2019/C 280/34)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B

Defendant: Latvijas Republikas Saeima

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the expression ‘[p]rocessing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences or related security measures’, used in Article 10 of Regulation 2016/679, (1) be interpreted as meaning that it includes the processing of information relating to penalty points recorded against drivers for motoring offences as provided for in the provision at issue? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the expression ‘[p]rocessing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences or related security measures’, used in Article 10 of Regulation 2016/679, (1) be interpreted as meaning that it includes the processing of information relating to penalty points recorded against drivers for motoring offences as provided for in the provision at issue?

| 2. | Irrespective of the answer to the first question, can the provisions of Regulation 2016/679, in particular the principle of ‘integrity and confidentiality’ referred to in Article 5(1)(f) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that they prohibit Member States from stipulating that information relating to penalty points recorded against drivers for motoring offences falls within the public domain and from allowing such data to be processed by being communicated? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Irrespective of the answer to the first question, can the provisions of Regulation 2016/679, in particular the principle of ‘integrity and confidentiality’ referred to in Article 5(1)(f) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that they prohibit Member States from stipulating that information relating to penalty points recorded against drivers for motoring offences falls within the public domain and from allowing such data to be processed by being communicated?

| 3. | Must recitals 50 and 154 and Articles 5(1)(b) and 10 of Regulation 2016/679 and Article 1(2)(cc) of Directive 2003/98/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that they preclude legislation of a Member State which allows information relating to penalty points recorded against drivers for motoring offences to be transmitted for the purposes of re-use? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must recitals 50 and 154 and Articles 5(1)(b) and 10 of Regulation 2016/679 and Article 1(2)(cc) of Directive 2003/98/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that they preclude legislation of a Member State which allows information relating to penalty points recorded against drivers for motoring offences to be transmitted for the purposes of re-use?

| 4. | If any of the foregoing questions is answered in the affirmative, must the principle of the primacy of EU law and the principle of legal certainty be interpreted as meaning that it might be permissible to apply the provision at issue and maintain its legal effects until such time as the decision ultimately adopted by the Constitutional Court becomes final? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If any of the foregoing questions is answered in the affirmative, must the principle of the primacy of EU law and the principle of legal certainty be interpreted as meaning that it might be permissible to apply the provision at issue and maintain its legal effects until such time as the decision ultimately adopted by the Constitutional Court becomes final?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90).

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 13 June 2019 — Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto

(Case C-450/19)

(2019/C 280/35)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto

Defendant: Eltel Group Oy ja Eltel Networks Oy

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the system of competition established by Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) be interpreted to mean that, in a situation in which a cartel participant has entered into a construction contract as agreed in the cartel with a player outside the cartel, the competition infringement continues, due to the economic effects caused thereby, throughout the whole period in which contractual obligations arising from the contract are discharged or payments for the works are made to the contracting parties, that is to say up until the point at which the last instalment is paid for the works, or at least up until the point at which the works in question are completed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the system of competition established by Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) be interpreted to mean that, in a situation in which a cartel participant has entered into a construction contract as agreed in the cartel with a player outside the cartel, the competition infringement continues, due to the economic effects caused thereby, throughout the whole period in which contractual obligations arising from the contract are discharged or payments for the works are made to the contracting parties, that is to say up until the point at which the last instalment is paid for the works, or at least up until the point at which the works in question are completed;

| 2. | or is it to be assumed that the competition infringement continues only until the point at which the company that committed the infringement has submitted a tender for the works concerned or entered into a contract for the execution of the works? |
| --- | --- |

2.

or is it to be assumed that the competition infringement continues only until the point at which the company that committed the infringement has submitted a tender for the works concerned or entered into a contract for the execution of the works?

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Heilbronn (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against ZW

(Case C-454/19)

(2019/C 280/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Heilbronn

Party to the main proceedings

ZW

Questions referred

| 1. | Is primary and/or secondary European law, in particular Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, in the sense of a full right of EU citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, to be interpreted as meaning that it also covers national criminal provisions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is primary and/or secondary European law, in particular Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, in the sense of a full right of EU citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, to be interpreted as meaning that it also covers national criminal provisions?

| 2. | If the question is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of primary and/or secondary European law preclude the application of a national criminal provision which penalises the retention of a child from his guardian abroad where the provision does not differentiate between Member States of the European Union and third countries? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the question is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of primary and/or secondary European law preclude the application of a national criminal provision which penalises the retention of a child from his guardian abroad where the provision does not differentiate between Member States of the European Union and third countries?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt — (Sweden) lodged on 14 June 2019 — Östgötatrafiken AB v Patent- och registreringsverket

(Case C-456/19)

(2019/C 280/37)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea Hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Östgötatrafiken AB

Respondent: Patent- och registreringsverket

Questions referred

The questions concern the application of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) and are as follows:

| 1. | Must Article 4(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Directive be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an application for registration of a trade mark which characterises services and where the application relates to a sign, placed in a particular position, which covers large areas of the physical objects used to perform the services, it must be assessed whether the mark is not independent of the appearance of the objects concerned? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 4(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Directive be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an application for registration of a trade mark which characterises services and where the application relates to a sign, placed in a particular position, which covers large areas of the physical objects used to perform the services, it must be assessed whether the mark is not independent of the appearance of the objects concerned?

| 2. | If question I is answered in the affirmative, is it necessary for the trade mark to depart significantly from the norm or customs of the economic sector concerned in order for the mark to be regarded as having distinctive character? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question I is answered in the affirmative, is it necessary for the trade mark to depart significantly from the norm or customs of the economic sector concerned in order for the mark to be regarded as having distinctive character?

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 17 June 2019 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Wellcome Trust Ltd

(Case C-459/19)

(2019/C 280/38)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Respondent: Wellcome Trust Ltd

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 44 of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that when a taxable person carrying on a non-economic activity consisting of the purchase and sale of shares and other securities in the course of the management of the assets of a charitable trust acquires a supply of investment management services from a person outside of the Community exclusively for the purposes of such activity, it is to be regarded as ‘a taxable person acting as such’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 44 of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that when a taxable person carrying on a non-economic activity consisting of the purchase and sale of shares and other securities in the course of the management of the assets of a charitable trust acquires a supply of investment management services from a person outside of the Community exclusively for the purposes of such activity, it is to be regarded as ‘a taxable person acting as such’?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative and Articles 46 to 49 of the Directive do not apply, does Article 45 of the Directive apply to the supply or does neither Article 44 or Article 45 apply to the supply? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative and Articles 46 to 49 of the Directive do not apply, does Article 45 of the Directive apply to the supply or does neither Article 44 or Article 45 apply to the supply?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006, L 347, p. 1).

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de prud’hommes de Metz (France) lodged on 18 June 2019 — Syndicat CFTC du personnel de la Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle v Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de Moselle

(Case C-463/19)

(2019/C 280/39)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil de prud’hommes de Metz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syndicat CFTC du personnel de la Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle

Defendant: Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de Moselle

Other party: Mission nationale de contrôle et d’audit des organismes de sécurité sociale

Question referred

Should Directive 2006/54/EC (1) read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 157 TFEU, the general EU law principles of equal treatment and of the prohibition of discrimination, and Articles 20, 21(1) and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of Article 46 of the French national collective agreement for social security bodies, which grant female employees of social security organisations raising children on their own three months leave with half pay, one and a half months leave with full pay and unpaid leave of up to a year after maternity leave, are excluded from the scope of application of that directive?

---

(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 (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against QR

(Case C-467/19)

(2019/C 280/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

QR

Question referred

Is case-law such as that at issue, which concerns the national law regarding the approval by the court of an agreement on the imposition of a negotiated penalty concluded between the prosecution and the defence, which provides for the consent of the other persons charged as a condition for the approval of such an agreement, and that that consent is required only during the trial stage of the proceedings, consistent with Article 7(4) of Directive 2016/343, (1) with Article 47 and Article 52 of the Charter, and with the principles of effectiveness and equality?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/30

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 17 June 2019 — Friends of the Irish Environment Limited v Commissioner for Environmental Information

(Case C-470/19)

(2019/C 280/41)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Friends of the Irish Environment Limited

Respondent: Commissioner for Environmental Information

First Notice Party: The Courts Service of Ireland

Question referred

Is control of access to court records relating to proceedings in which final judgment has been delivered, the period for an appeal has expired and no appeal or further application is pending, but further applications in particular circumstances are possible, an exercise of ‘judicial capacity’ within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC?

---

(1)  OJ 2003, L 41, p. 26.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 20 June 2019 — Vert Marine SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-472/19)

(2019/C 280/42)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vert Marine SAS

Defendant): Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (1) be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, with an objective of promoting accountability in public procurement, from not giving an economic operator that has been convicted by final judgment of an offence of specific gravity, and that, on that ground, is the subject of a measure prohibiting it from participating in a procedure for procurement by a concession contract for a period of five years, the opportunity of providing evidence to the effect that the measures it has taken are sufficient to demonstrate its reliability despite the existence of that ground for exclusion? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (1) be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, with an objective of promoting accountability in public procurement, from not giving an economic operator that has been convicted by final judgment of an offence of specific gravity, and that, on that ground, is the subject of a measure prohibiting it from participating in a procedure for procurement by a concession contract for a period of five years, the opportunity of providing evidence to the effect that the measures it has taken are sufficient to demonstrate its reliability despite the existence of that ground for exclusion?

| 2. | If Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 allows the Member States to entrust authorities other than the contracting authority concerned with the responsibility of assessing the compliance mechanism for operators, does that power enable that authority to entrust the courts with that mechanism? If so, can mechanisms such as the provisions of French law on release, judicial rehabilitation and the removal of any mention of the conviction from Bulletin No 2 of the criminal record be treated in the same way as compliance mechanisms in accordance with the directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 allows the Member States to entrust authorities other than the contracting authority concerned with the responsibility of assessing the compliance mechanism for operators, does that power enable that authority to entrust the courts with that mechanism? If so, can mechanisms such as the provisions of French law on release, judicial rehabilitation and the removal of any mention of the conviction from Bulletin No 2 of the criminal record be treated in the same way as compliance mechanisms in accordance with the directive?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against NJ

(Case C-489/19)

(2019/C 280/43)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Party to the main proceedings

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

v

NJ

Questions referred

Does the dependence of a public prosecutor's office on instructions prevent him from effectively issuing a European arrest warrant, (1) even if that decision is subject to a full judicial review before the execution of the European arrest warrant?

---

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

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Mijo Meštrović v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal, in the presence of: Finanzpolizei

(Case C-50/18) (1)

(2019/C 280/44)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of German, French Republic

(Case C-69/18) (1)

(2019/C 280/45)

Language of the case: Slovenian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/33

---

Order of the President of the Ninth of the Court of 8 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia

(Case C-391/18) (1)

(2019/C 280/46)

Language of the case: Croatian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach, VIII Wydział Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych — Poland) — Lebopoll Logistics Sp. z o.o.w Sośnicowicach v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Zabrzu, in the presence of: NJ.

(C-437/18) (1)

(2019/C 280/47)

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 5 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Bulgarian Air Charter Limited v NE

(Case C-758/18) (1)

(2019/C 280/48)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---

General Court

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-542/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Port of Tartous Loan Agreement No 22057 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2019/C 280/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Port of Tartous Loan Agreement No 22057, plus default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 20 609 429,45; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 20 609 429,45;

| 2. | Declares that those sums are to bear default interest, in accordance with the method laid down in Article 3.02 of Port of Tartous loan agreement No 22057, entered into by the EIB and the Syrian Arab Republic on 22 May 2003 and amended on 17 May 2006, 21 May 2007 and 10 July 2008, on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, from 9 August 2017 until the date that payment is made; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that those sums are to bear default interest, in accordance with the method laid down in Article 3.02 of Port of Tartous loan agreement No 22057, entered into by the EIB and the Syrian Arab Republic on 22 May 2003 and amended on 17 May 2006, 21 May 2007 and 10 July 2008, on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, from 9 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-543/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement No 21595 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2019/C 280/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement No 21595, plus default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB) the sums of EUR 62 646 209,04 and 3 582 381,15 US dollars (USD); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB) the sums of EUR 62 646 209,04 and 3 582 381,15 US dollars (USD);

| 2. | Declares that those sums are to bear default interest, in accordance with the method laid down in Article 3.02 of Syrian Healthcare loan agreement No 21595, entered into by the EIB and the Syrian Arab Republic on 15 June 2002 and amended on 17 October and 29 November 2007, on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, from 9 August 2017 until the date that payment is made; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that those sums are to bear default interest, in accordance with the method laid down in Article 3.02 of Syrian Healthcare loan agreement No 21595, entered into by the EIB and the Syrian Arab Republic on 15 June 2002 and amended on 17 October and 29 November 2007, on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, from 9 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 –EIB v Syria

(Case T-588/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement No 80211 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2019/C 280/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement No 80211, plus default interest

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 2 184 271,58; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 2 184 271,58;

| 2. | Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-589/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Aleppo-Tall Kojak Road Project Loan Agreement No 60136 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2019/C 280/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Aleppo-Tall Kojak Road Project Loan Agreement No 60136, plus default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Investment Bank (EIB) the sum of EUR 820 451,25; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Investment Bank (EIB) the sum of EUR 820 451,25;

| 2. | Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-590/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement No 80212 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2019/C 280/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement No 80212, plus default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 726 942,81; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 726 942,81;

| 2. | Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-591/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement No 80310 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2019/C 280/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement No 80310, plus default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 404 425,58; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 404 425,58;

| 2. | Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Synergy Hellas v Commission

(Case T-244/18) (1)

(Research and technological development - Financial regulation - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - J-Web grant agreement - Enforceable decision ordering recovery - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 280/55)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Damis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A Katsimerou and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 1115 final of 19 February 2018 on the recovery of the sum of EUR 76 282,08, together with interest, from the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis to pay the costs, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis to pay the costs, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament

(Case T-299/18) (1)

(Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - General contractor works in the European Parliament buildings in Brussels - Rejection of the bid of one tenderer and award of the contract to other tenderers - Abnormally low tender - Action for annulment - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

(2019/C 280/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented initially by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, and subsequently by M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Thomas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller, Z. Nagy and D. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the Parliament decision of 19 April 2018 to maintain in force its decision of 24 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender and awarding to five tenderers a framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels (call for tenders 06D 20/2017/M036) and, secondly, of the addendum to the Parliament’s tender assessment report of 26 March 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Strabag Belgium to pay the costs, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Strabag Belgium to pay the costs, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Porus v EUIPO (oral Dialysis)

(Case T-652/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark oral Dialysis - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 280/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Porus GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2018 (Case R 1375/2018-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign oral Dialysis as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Porus GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Porus GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/42

---

Action brought on 17 May 2019 — Graanhandel P. van Schelven v Commission

(Case T-306/19)

(2019/C 280/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Graanhandel P. van Schelven BV (Nieuwe Tonge, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Almeida, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 1(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/446; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/446; (1)

| — | order the defendant to produce all relevant documents leading to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2019/446. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to produce all relevant documents leading to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2019/446.

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 that the Commission’s revocation of ‘Control Union Certifications’ (CUC) as an EU organic certifier appears arbitrary as it is based on false facts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s revocation of ‘Control Union Certifications’ (CUC) as an EU organic certifier appears arbitrary as it is based on false facts.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s subjective right to be protected from the arbitrary revoking of Commission appointments of organic certifiers to run EU organic controls in third countries was violated. Its interest as a competitor in the organic market was not protected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s subjective right to be protected from the arbitrary revoking of Commission appointments of organic certifiers to run EU organic controls in third countries was violated. Its interest as a competitor in the organic market was not protected.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that, with the revocation of CUC’s appointment as an EU organic certifier, the supply of organic products in decade-long trade relations are blocked and the applicant’s rights as importer have been directly affected. Such direct concern is established by the contested regulation as the applicant was the recipient, as importer, of certificates of inspection issued by CUC which enabled it to access the EU organic food and feed market. CUC is the organic certifier for the farms in the Black Sea region from which the applicant’s main supplier sources the organic products. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that, with the revocation of CUC’s appointment as an EU organic certifier, the supply of organic products in decade-long trade relations are blocked and the applicant’s rights as importer have been directly affected. Such direct concern is established by the contested regulation as the applicant was the recipient, as importer, of certificates of inspection issued by CUC which enabled it to access the EU organic food and feed market. CUC is the organic certifier for the farms in the Black Sea region from which the applicant’s main supplier sources the organic products.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s right to be subject only to proportionate interference with its business as well as the basic fundamental guarantee of its property and its freedom to engage in commerce. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s right to be subject only to proportionate interference with its business as well as the basic fundamental guarantee of its property and its freedom to engage in commerce.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, referring to the applicant’s second head of claim, which seeks access to Commission documents, alleging that the applicant enjoys the general access rights granted under EU law and based on the guarantee of due process and the right to be heard as protected by relevant human rights instruments. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, referring to the applicant’s second head of claim, which seeks access to Commission documents, alleging that the applicant enjoys the general access rights granted under EU law and based on the guarantee of due process and the right to be heard as protected by relevant human rights instruments.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/446 of 19 March 2019 amending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries (OJ 2019 L 77, p. 67).

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/43

---

Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Catasta v Parliament

(Case T-393/19)

(2019/C 280/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Anna Catasta (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/43

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Zecchino v Parliament

(Case T-394/19)

(2019/C 280/60)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ortensio Zecchino (Ariano Irpino, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/44

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Tognoli v Parliament

(Case T-395/19)

(2019/C 280/61)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo Tognoli (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/45

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Allione v Parliament

(Case T-396/19)

(2019/C 280/62)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Emma Allione (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/45

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Novati v Parliament

(Case T-397/19)

(2019/C 280/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Vanda Novati (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/46

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Paciotti v Parliament

(Case T-398/19)

(2019/C 280/64)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Elena Ornella Paciotti (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/47

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Fantuzzi v Parliament

(Case T-403/19)

(2019/C 280/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giulio Fantuzzi (Correggio, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/47

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Lavarra v Parliament

(Case T-404/19)

(2019/C 280/66)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Vincenzo Lavarra (Bari, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/48

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Malerba v Parliament

(Case T-405/19)

(2019/C 280/67)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Franco Malerba (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Florio, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---