# Official Journal C 363/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 363 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6228 October 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 363

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6228 October 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2019/C 363/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |
| | General Court |
| 2019/C 363/02 | Elections of Presidents of Chambers | 2 |
| 2019/C 363/03 | Election of the Vice-President of the General Court | 2 |
| 2019/C 363/04 | Election of the President of the General Court | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2019/C 363/01

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

1

General Court

2019/C 363/02

Elections of Presidents of Chambers

2

2019/C 363/03

Election of the Vice-President of the General Court

2

2019/C 363/04

Election of the President of the General Court

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2019/C 363/05 | Case C-68/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2019 by Camomilla Srl against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2018 in Case T-44/17 Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA) | 3 |
| 2019/C 363/06 | Case C-98/19 P: Appeal brought on 7 February 2019 by Comprojecto-Projectos e Construçoes, Lda, and Others against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-493/18 Comprojecto-Projectos e Construçoes and Others v Portugal | 3 |
| 2019/C 363/07 | Case C-375/19 P: Appeal brought on 13 May 2019 by Wirecard Technologies GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 March 2019 in Case T-297/18: Wirecard Technologies GmbH v EUIPO – Striatum Ventures | 4 |
| 2019/C 363/08 | Case C-444/19 P: Appeal brought on 11 June 2019 by Kiku GmbH against the judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 11 April 2019 in Case T-765/17, Kiku GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) | 4 |
| 2019/C 363/09 | Case C-503/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 2 July 2019 — UQ v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona | 4 |
| 2019/C 363/10 | Case C-504/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 July 2019 — Banco de Portugal, Fundo de Resolução, Novo Banco, S.A. v VR | 5 |
| 2019/C 363/11 | Case C-521/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 8 July 2019 — CB v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia | 6 |
| 2019/C 363/12 | Case C-524/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Nules (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — Investcapital Ltd v FE | 7 |
| 2019/C 363/13 | Case C-568/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 25 July 2019 — MO v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo | 7 |
| 2019/C 363/14 | Case C-592/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.o 05 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 2 August 2019 — SI v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona | 8 |
| 2019/C 363/15 | Case C-598/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 6 August 2019 — Confederación Nacional de Centros Especiales de Empleo (CONACEE) v Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa | 9 |
| 2019/C 363/16 | Case C-621/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) lodged on 20 August 2019 – Weindel Logistik Service SR spol. s r.o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky | 9 |
| 2019/C 363/17 | Case C-668/19: Action brought on 15 July 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic | 10 |
| 2019/C 363/18 | Case C-676/19 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2019 by Bruno Gollnisch against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-95/18, Gollnisch v Parliament | 12 |
| | General Court |
| 2019/C 363/19 | Case T-313/15 and T-317/15: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Italy v Commission (Rules on the use of languages – Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators – Choice of second language from three languages – Regulation No 1 – Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations – Principle of non-discrimination – Proportionality – Manifestly well-founded action) | 13 |
| 2019/C 363/20 | Case T-212/18: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2019 — Romańska v Frontex (Civil Service – Contract Staff – Contract for an indefinite period – Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS – Termination – Grounds for termination – Breakdown in the relationship of trust – Discrimination and psychological harassment – Compensation claim – Manifest inadmissibility) | 14 |
| 2019/C 363/21 | Case T-575/18: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2019 — Shore Capital International v EUIPO — Circle Imperium (The Inner Circle) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark The Inner Circle – Earlier EU word mark InnerCircle – Relative ground for refusal – No similarity between the services – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 14 |
| 2019/C 363/22 | Case T-762/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 September 2019 — Athanasiadou and Soulantikas v Commission (Application for interim relief – Financial provisions (budget, financial framework, own resources, combating fraud) – Enforcement – Application for suspension – Admissibility – No urgency) | 15 |
| 2019/C 363/23 | Case T-209/19: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Giorgio Armani v EUIPO — Invicta Watch Company of America (GLYCINE) (European Union trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Withdrawal of the application for registration – No need to adjudicate) | 16 |
| 2019/C 363/24 | Case T-388/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 1 July 2019 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament (Application for interim measures – European Parliament – Verification of the credentials – No prima facie case) | 16 |
| 2019/C 363/25 | Case T-578/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Sophia Group v Parliament (Interim measures – Public service contracts – Application for interim measures – Lack of urgency) | 17 |
| 2019/C 363/26 | Case T-514/19: Action brought on 18 July 2019 – DI v ECB | 18 |
| 2019/C 363/27 | Case T-534/19: Action brought on 26 July 2019 – TestBioTech v Commission | 19 |
| 2019/C 363/28 | Case T-569/19: Action brought on 15 August 2019 – AlzChem Group v Commission | 19 |
| 2019/C 363/29 | Case T-578/19: Action brought on 21 August 2019 — Sophia Group v Parliament | 20 |
| 2019/C 363/30 | Case T-585/19: Action brought on 23 August 2019 — EJ v EIB | 22 |
| 2019/C 363/31 | Case T-586/19: Action brought on 26 August 2019 — PL v Commission | 23 |
| 2019/C 363/32 | Case T-587/19: Action brought on 26 August 2019 — Frutas Tono v EUIPO — Agrocazalla (Marién) | 24 |
| 2019/C 363/33 | Case T-591/19: Action brought on 28 August 2019 – Healios v EUIPO – Helios Kliniken (Healios) | 25 |
| 2019/C 363/34 | Case T-593/19: Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Chypre v EUIPO – Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER) | 25 |
| 2019/C 363/35 | Case T-594/19: Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Axactor v EUIPO – Axa (AXACTOR) | 26 |
| 2019/C 363/36 | Case T-597/19: Action brought on 6 September 2019 — Helsingin kaupunki v Commission | 27 |
| 2019/C 363/37 | Case T-601/19: Action brought on 7 September 2019 – Osório & Gonçalves v EUIPO – Miguel Torres (in.fi.ni.tu.de) | 28 |
| 2019/C 363/38 | Case T-602/19: Action brought on 3 September 2019 – Eugene Perma France v EUIPO – SPI Investments Group (NATURANOVE) | 29 |
| 2019/C 363/39 | Case T-604/19: Action brought on 4 September 2019 – Inova Semiconductors v EUIPO – Venta Servicio LED (ISELED) | 30 |
| 2019/C 363/40 | Case T-610/19: Action brought on 9 September 2019 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission | 31 |
| 2019/C 363/41 | Case T-611/19: Action brought on 9 September 2019 – Iniciativa ciudadana - Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas v Commission | 32 |
| 2019/C 363/42 | Case T-615/19: Action brought on 12 September 2019 – Point Tec Products Electronic v EUIPO – Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon (Representation of two extended wings) | 33 |
| 2019/C 363/43 | Case T-616/19: Action brought on 12 September 2019 — Katjes Fassin v EUIPO — Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium (WONDERLAND) | 34 |
| 2019/C 363/44 | Case T-623/19: Action brought on 16 September 2019 – ArcelorMittal Bremen v Commission | 35 |
| 2019/C 363/45 | Case T-242/18: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — VV v Commission | 36 |
| 2019/C 363/46 | Case T-424/18: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2019 — Puma v EUIPO — Carrefour (Representation of crossed lines) | 36 |
| 2019/C 363/47 | Case T-244/19: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Café Camelo v EUIPO — Camel Brand (CAMEL BRAND FOOD PRODUCTS) | 37 |
| 2019/C 363/48 | Case T-376/19: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Big Bang (LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY) | 37 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice of the European Union

2019/C 363/05

Case C-68/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2019 by Camomilla Srl against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2018 in Case T-44/17 Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA)

3

2019/C 363/06

Case C-98/19 P: Appeal brought on 7 February 2019 by Comprojecto-Projectos e Construçoes, Lda, and Others against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-493/18 Comprojecto-Projectos e Construçoes and Others v Portugal

3

2019/C 363/07

Case C-375/19 P: Appeal brought on 13 May 2019 by Wirecard Technologies GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 March 2019 in Case T-297/18: Wirecard Technologies GmbH v EUIPO – Striatum Ventures

4

2019/C 363/08

Case C-444/19 P: Appeal brought on 11 June 2019 by Kiku GmbH against the judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 11 April 2019 in Case T-765/17, Kiku GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

4

2019/C 363/09

Case C-503/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 2 July 2019 — UQ v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

4

2019/C 363/10

Case C-504/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 July 2019 — Banco de Portugal, Fundo de Resolução, Novo Banco, S.A. v VR

5

2019/C 363/11

Case C-521/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 8 July 2019 — CB v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia

6

2019/C 363/12

Case C-524/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Nules (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — Investcapital Ltd v FE

7

2019/C 363/13

Case C-568/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 25 July 2019 — MO v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

7

2019/C 363/14

Case C-592/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.o 05 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 2 August 2019 — SI v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

8

2019/C 363/15

Case C-598/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 6 August 2019 — Confederación Nacional de Centros Especiales de Empleo (CONACEE) v Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa

9

2019/C 363/16

Case C-621/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) lodged on 20 August 2019 – Weindel Logistik Service SR spol. s r.o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

9

2019/C 363/17

Case C-668/19: Action brought on 15 July 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic

10

2019/C 363/18

Case C-676/19 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2019 by Bruno Gollnisch against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-95/18, Gollnisch v Parliament

12

General Court

2019/C 363/19

Case T-313/15 and T-317/15: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Italy v Commission (Rules on the use of languages – Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators – Choice of second language from three languages – Regulation No 1 – Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations – Principle of non-discrimination – Proportionality – Manifestly well-founded action)

13

2019/C 363/20

Case T-212/18: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2019 — Romańska v Frontex (Civil Service – Contract Staff – Contract for an indefinite period – Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS – Termination – Grounds for termination – Breakdown in the relationship of trust – Discrimination and psychological harassment – Compensation claim – Manifest inadmissibility)

14

2019/C 363/21

Case T-575/18: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2019 — Shore Capital International v EUIPO — Circle Imperium (The Inner Circle) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark The Inner Circle – Earlier EU word mark InnerCircle – Relative ground for refusal – No similarity between the services – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

14

2019/C 363/22

Case T-762/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 September 2019 — Athanasiadou and Soulantikas v Commission (Application for interim relief – Financial provisions (budget, financial framework, own resources, combating fraud) – Enforcement – Application for suspension – Admissibility – No urgency)

15

2019/C 363/23

Case T-209/19: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Giorgio Armani v EUIPO — Invicta Watch Company of America (GLYCINE) (European Union trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Withdrawal of the application for registration – No need to adjudicate)

16

2019/C 363/24

Case T-388/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 1 July 2019 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament (Application for interim measures – European Parliament – Verification of the credentials – No prima facie case)

16

2019/C 363/25

Case T-578/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Sophia Group v Parliament (Interim measures – Public service contracts – Application for interim measures – Lack of urgency)

17

2019/C 363/26

Case T-514/19: Action brought on 18 July 2019 – DI v ECB

18

2019/C 363/27

Case T-534/19: Action brought on 26 July 2019 – TestBioTech v Commission

19

2019/C 363/28

Case T-569/19: Action brought on 15 August 2019 – AlzChem Group v Commission

19

2019/C 363/29

Case T-578/19: Action brought on 21 August 2019 — Sophia Group v Parliament

20

2019/C 363/30

Case T-585/19: Action brought on 23 August 2019 — EJ v EIB

22

2019/C 363/31

Case T-586/19: Action brought on 26 August 2019 — PL v Commission

23

2019/C 363/32

Case T-587/19: Action brought on 26 August 2019 — Frutas Tono v EUIPO — Agrocazalla (Marién)

24

2019/C 363/33

Case T-591/19: Action brought on 28 August 2019 – Healios v EUIPO – Helios Kliniken (Healios)

25

2019/C 363/34

Case T-593/19: Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Chypre v EUIPO – Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)

25

2019/C 363/35

Case T-594/19: Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Axactor v EUIPO – Axa (AXACTOR)

26

2019/C 363/36

Case T-597/19: Action brought on 6 September 2019 — Helsingin kaupunki v Commission

27

2019/C 363/37

Case T-601/19: Action brought on 7 September 2019 – Osório & Gonçalves v EUIPO – Miguel Torres (in.fi.ni.tu.de)

28

2019/C 363/38

Case T-602/19: Action brought on 3 September 2019 – Eugene Perma France v EUIPO – SPI Investments Group (NATURANOVE)

29

2019/C 363/39

Case T-604/19: Action brought on 4 September 2019 – Inova Semiconductors v EUIPO – Venta Servicio LED (ISELED)

30

2019/C 363/40

Case T-610/19: Action brought on 9 September 2019 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission

31

2019/C 363/41

Case T-611/19: Action brought on 9 September 2019 – Iniciativa ciudadana - Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas v Commission

32

2019/C 363/42

Case T-615/19: Action brought on 12 September 2019 – Point Tec Products Electronic v EUIPO – Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon (Representation of two extended wings)

33

2019/C 363/43

Case T-616/19: Action brought on 12 September 2019 — Katjes Fassin v EUIPO — Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium (WONDERLAND)

34

2019/C 363/44

Case T-623/19: Action brought on 16 September 2019 – ArcelorMittal Bremen v Commission

35

2019/C 363/45

Case T-242/18: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — VV v Commission

36

2019/C 363/46

Case T-424/18: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2019 — Puma v EUIPO — Carrefour (Representation of crossed lines)

36

2019/C 363/47

Case T-244/19: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Café Camelo v EUIPO — Camel Brand (CAMEL BRAND FOOD PRODUCTS)

37

2019/C 363/48

Case T-376/19: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Big Bang (LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY)

37

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/1

---

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

(2019/C 363/01)

Last publication

OJ C 357, 21.10.2019

Past publications

OJ C 348, 14.10.2019

OJ C 337, 7.10.2019

OJ C 328, 30.9.2019

OJ C 319, 23.9.2019

OJ C 312, 16.9.2019

OJ C 305, 9.9.2019

These texts are available on:

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

---

General Court

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/2

---

Elections of Presidents of Chambers

(2019/C 363/02)

On 30 September 2019, the General Court, in accordance with Article 9(3) and Article 18(1) of the Rules of Procedure, elected, as Presidents of the Chambers sitting with three and with five Judges for the period from 30 September 2019 to 31 August 2022:

| — | Mr Kanninen; |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Kanninen;

| — | Ms Tomljenović; |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Tomljenović;

| — | Mr Collins; |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Collins;

| — | Mr Gervasoni; |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Gervasoni;

| — | Mr Spielmann; |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Spielmann;

| — | Ms Marcoulli; |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Marcoulli;

| — | Mr da Silva Passos; |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr da Silva Passos;

| — | Mr Svenningsen; |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Svenningsen;

| — | Ms Costeira; |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Costeira;

| — | Mr Kornezov. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Kornezov.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/2

---

Election of the Vice-President of the General Court

(2019/C 363/03)

Meeting on 27 September 2019, the Judges of the General Court, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the Rules of Procedure, elected Mr Savvas Papasavvas Vice-President of the General Court for the period from 27 September 2019 to 31 August 2022.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/2

---

Election of the President of the General Court

(2019/C 363/04)

Meeting on 27 September 2019, the Judges of the General Court, in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure, elected Mr Marc van der Woude President of the General Court for the period from 27 September 2019 to 31 August 2022.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/3

---

Appeal brought on 29 January 2019 by Camomilla Srl against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2018 in Case T-44/17 Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA)

(Case C-68/19 P)

(2019/C 363/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Camomilla Srl (represented by: M. Mussi, H.G. Chiappetta, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl

By order of 11 September 2019, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded, and ordered Camomilla Srl to bear its own costs.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/3

---

Appeal brought on 7 February 2019 by Comprojecto-Projectos e Construçoes, Lda, and Others against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-493/18 Comprojecto-Projectos e Construçoes and Others v Portugal

(Case C-98/19 P)

(2019/C 363/06)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellants: Comprojecto-Projectos e Construçoes, Lda, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo (represented by: M. A. Ribeiro, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic

By order of 11 September 2019, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/4

---

Appeal brought on 13 May 2019 by Wirecard Technologies GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 March 2019 in Case T-297/18: Wirecard Technologies GmbH v EUIPO – Striatum Ventures

(Case C-375/19 P)

(2019/C 363/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Wirecard Technologies GmbH (represented by: A. Bayer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Striatum Ventures

By order of 10 September 2019 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/4

---

Appeal brought on 11 June 2019 by Kiku GmbH against the judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 11 April 2019 in Case T-765/17, Kiku GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

(Case C-444/19 P)

(2019/C 363/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Kiku GmbH (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office, Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie

By order of 16 September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 2 July 2019 — UQ v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

(Case C-503/19)

(2019/C 363/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UQ

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

Questions referred

| 1. | Whether an interpretation by the national courts under which the existence of any form of criminal record is sufficient grounds for refusing long-term resident status is compliant with Article 6(1) and Article 17 of Directive 2003/109. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Whether an interpretation by the national courts under which the existence of any form of criminal record is sufficient grounds for refusing long-term resident status is compliant with Article 6(1) and Article 17 of Directive 2003/109. (1)

| 2. | Whether, in addition to the existence of a criminal record, the national courts should take account of other factors, such as the severity and length of the sentence, the danger the applicant represents to society, the duration of the applicant’s prior legal residence and the links he has formed with the country, and make an assessment that takes all these elements into account. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Whether, in addition to the existence of a criminal record, the national courts should take account of other factors, such as the severity and length of the sentence, the danger the applicant represents to society, the duration of the applicant’s prior legal residence and the links he has formed with the country, and make an assessment that takes all these elements into account.

| 3. | Whether Article 6(1) of the directive should be interpreted as precluding a rule of national law that allows long-term resident status under Article 4 to be refused on public policy or public security grounds without establishing the assessment criteria included in Article 6(1) and Article 17. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Whether Article 6(1) of the directive should be interpreted as precluding a rule of national law that allows long-term resident status under Article 4 to be refused on public policy or public security grounds without establishing the assessment criteria included in Article 6(1) and Article 17.

| 4. | Whether Article 6(1) and Article 17 of Directive 2003/109 should be interpreted as meaning that, under the case-law established by the Court of Justice that directives have vertical direct effect, the national court has authority to apply the content of Article 6(1) and Article 17 directly, and may do so in order to assess a criminal record, having regard to the gravity of the offence, the length of the sentence, and the danger represented by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Whether Article 6(1) and Article 17 of Directive 2003/109 should be interpreted as meaning that, under the case-law established by the Court of Justice that directives have vertical direct effect, the national court has authority to apply the content of Article 6(1) and Article 17 directly, and may do so in order to assess a criminal record, having regard to the gravity of the offence, the length of the sentence, and the danger represented by the applicant.

| 5. | Whether EU law, in particular the right to obtain long-term resident status, and the principles of clarity, transparency and intelligibility, should be interpreted as precluding an interpretation by the Spanish courts of Articles 147 to 149 of Royal Decree 557/2011 and Article 32 of Organic Law 4/2000 under which long-term resident status may be refused on public policy and public security grounds, even though those provisions do not set out clearly and transparently that these shall be grounds for refusal. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Whether EU law, in particular the right to obtain long-term resident status, and the principles of clarity, transparency and intelligibility, should be interpreted as precluding an interpretation by the Spanish courts of Articles 147 to 149 of Royal Decree 557/2011 and Article 32 of Organic Law 4/2000 under which long-term resident status may be refused on public policy and public security grounds, even though those provisions do not set out clearly and transparently that these shall be grounds for refusal.

| 6. | Whether a provision of national law and its interpretation by the courts that hinder access to long-term resident status and encourage temporary residence are compliant with the principle that Directive 2003/19 must have practical effect, and with Article 6(1) in particular.’ |
| --- | --- |

6.

Whether a provision of national law and its interpretation by the courts that hinder access to long-term resident status and encourage temporary residence are compliant with the principle that Directive 2003/19 must have practical effect, and with Article 6(1) in particular.’

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 July 2019 — Banco de Portugal, Fundo de Resolução, Novo Banco, S.A. v VR

(Case C-504/19)

(2019/C 363/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Banco de Portugal, Fundo de Resolução, Novo Banco, S.A.

Defendant: VR

Question referred

Is an interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24/EC (1) under which, in legal proceedings pending in other Member States, the courts must, without any further formalities, recognise the effects of a Decision by the competent administrative authority of the home Member State that is intended retrospectively to change the legal framework that existed at the time the proceedings were commenced and that renders ineffective any judgments that do not accord with the provisions of the new decision, compatible with the fundamental right to an effective remedy in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, the principle of the rule of law in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, and the general principle of legal certainty?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15).

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 8 July 2019 — CB v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia

(Case C-521/19)

(2019/C 363/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CB

Defendant: Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia

Questions referred

Must Articles 73 and 78 of the VAT Directive, (1) in the light of the principles of neutrality, prohibition of tax evasion and abuse of rights, and prohibition of the illegal distortion of competition, be interpreted as precluding national legislation and the case-law interpreting it, pursuant to which, where the tax authorities discover concealed transactions subject to value added tax for which no invoice was issued, the price agreed by the parties for those transactions must be regarded as already including value added tax?

Is it therefore possible, in cases of fraud in which the transaction was concealed from the tax authorities, to consider, as may be deduced from the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 28 July 2016 (Case C-332/15, Astone (2)), of 5 October 2016 (Case C-576/15, Marinova (3)) and of 7 March 2018 (C-159/17, Dobre (4)), that the amounts paid and received do not include value added tax in order to conduct the proper assessment and impose the appropriate penalty?

---

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

(2)  Judgment of 28 July 2016, Astone (C-332/15, EU:C:2016:614).

(3)  Judgment of 5 October 2016, Marinova (C-576/15, EU:C:2016:740).

(4)  Judgment of 7 March 2018, Dobre (C-159/17, EU:C:2018:161).

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Nules (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — Investcapital Ltd v FE

(Case C-524/19)

(2019/C 363/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Nules

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Investcapital Ltd

Defendant: FE

Question referred

Must Article 7 of Regulation No 1896/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 be interpreted as meaning that, in European order for payment proceedings brought thereunder, it does not preclude courts from reviewing of their own motion any unfair terms in the contract under which the debt has arisen in accordance with Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (2) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, particularly if the national court needs to carry out a prior examination of the contract in order to conduct that review?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 25 July 2019 — MO v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

(Case C-568/19)

(2019/C 363/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MO

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

Question referred

Whether an interpretation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 April 2015 (Case C-38/14, Zaizoune) (1) as meaning the Spanish authorities and courts can directly apply Directive 2008/115/EC (2)
  to the detriment of the third-country national, thereby ignoring and disapplying more advantageous national penalty provisions, aggravating that national’s liability to a penalty and possibly disregarding the principle that criminal penalties must be defined by law, is compatible with the case-law of the Court of Justice on the limits on the direct effect of directives, and should the fact that the Spanish legislation is not in conformity with that directive be resolved not in that way but by legislative reform or by the remedies provided by EU law whereby a State can be required properly to transpose directives.

---

(1)  Judgment of 23 April 2015, Zaizoune (C-38/14, EU:C:2015:260).

(2)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.o 05 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 2 August 2019 — SI v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

(Case C-592/19)

(2019/C 363/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.o 05 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SI

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

Question referred

Must Article 4 and Article 6(1) of Directive 2003/109/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a criminal record, of any nature, is sufficient grounds for refusing access to long-term resident status, without any requirement to assess the duration of residence and the existence of links with the country of residence?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 6 August 2019 — Confederación Nacional de Centros Especiales de Empleo (CONACEE) v Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa

(Case C-598/19)

(2019/C 363/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Confederación Nacional de Centros Especiales de Empleo (CONACEE)

Defendant: Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa

Question referred

Must Article 20 of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) on public procurement be interpreted as meaning that the scope ratione personae of the reservation laid down therein cannot be defined in terms which exclude from its scope undertakings or economic operators which satisfy the condition that at least 30 % of their employees must be persons with disabilities and which meet the aim or objective of the social and professional integration of those persons, by setting additional criteria related to the constitution, character and aims of those bodies, to their activities and investments, or to other matters

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement (OJ 2014 L 94, p.65)

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) lodged on 20 August 2019 – Weindel Logistik Service SR spol. s r.o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-621/19)

(2019/C 363/16)

Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Weindel Logistik Service SR spol. s r.o.

Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 167 and Article 168(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) [of 28 November 2006] on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct the value added tax which a taxable person is required to pay on imported goods is conditional on a right of ownership in respect of the imported goods or on the right to dispose of the imported goods as owner? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 167 and Article 168(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) [of 28 November 2006] on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct the value added tax which a taxable person is required to pay on imported goods is conditional on a right of ownership in respect of the imported goods or on the right to dispose of the imported goods as owner?

| 2. | Must Article 168(e) of Directive 2006/112/EC ... be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct the value added tax which a taxable person is required to pay on imported goods arises only if the imported goods are used for the purposes of the taxable person’s taxable transactions in the form of the sale of the goods in the national territory or the supply of the goods to another Member State or the export of the goods to a third country? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 168(e) of Directive 2006/112/EC ... be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct the value added tax which a taxable person is required to pay on imported goods arises only if the imported goods are used for the purposes of the taxable person’s taxable transactions in the form of the sale of the goods in the national territory or the supply of the goods to another Member State or the export of the goods to a third country?

| 3. | In such circumstances, is the condition that there be a direct and immediate link between the goods purchased and the output transaction satisfied and, more specifically, is it permissible to apply, in the present case, the traditional interpretation of the right of deduction based on a direct and immediate link between the goods purchased and the output transactions with regard to cost components that have not arisen in relation to the goods and that cannot therefore be reflected in the price of the output supply? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In such circumstances, is the condition that there be a direct and immediate link between the goods purchased and the output transaction satisfied and, more specifically, is it permissible to apply, in the present case, the traditional interpretation of the right of deduction based on a direct and immediate link between the goods purchased and the output transactions with regard to cost components that have not arisen in relation to the goods and that cannot therefore be reflected in the price of the output 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.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/10

---

Action brought on 15 July 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-668/19)

(2019/C 363/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, L. Cimaglia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

declare that the Italian Republic, by failing to

| — | adopt the measures necessary to ensure that 166 agglomerations which have a population equivalent of more than 2 000 are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water, in accordance with Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

adopt the measures necessary to ensure that 166 agglomerations which have a population equivalent of more than 2 000 are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water, in accordance with Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, (1)

| — | adopt the measures necessary to ensure that in 610 agglomerations which have a population equivalent of more than 10 000, or which have a population equivalent of between 2 000 and 10 000 and discharge in fresh water or estuaries, urban waste water entering collecting systems is, before discharge, subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC, |
| --- | --- |

—

adopt the measures necessary to ensure that in 610 agglomerations which have a population equivalent of more than 10 000, or which have a population equivalent of between 2 000 and 10 000 and discharge in fresh water or estuaries, urban waste water entering collecting systems is, before discharge, subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC,

| — | adopt the measures necessary to ensure that in 10 agglomerations which have a population equivalent of more than 10 000 and discharge into receiving waters considered to be ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Directive 91/271/EEC, urban waste water entering collecting systems is, before discharge, subject to more stringent treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, in accordance with Article 5 of that directive, |
| --- | --- |

—

adopt the measures necessary to ensure that in 10 agglomerations which have a population equivalent of more than 10 000 and discharge into receiving waters considered to be ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Directive 91/271/EEC, urban waste water entering collecting systems is, before discharge, subject to more stringent treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, in accordance with Article 5 of that directive,

| — | adopt the measures necessary to ensure that in five ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Directive 91/271/EEC the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all urban waste water treatment plants in that area is at least 75 % for total phosphorus and at least 75 % for total nitrogen, in accordance with Article 5(4) of that directive, |
| --- | --- |

—

adopt the measures necessary to ensure that in five ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Directive 91/271/EEC the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all urban waste water treatment plants in that area is at least 75 % for total phosphorus and at least 75 % for total nitrogen, in accordance with Article 5(4) of that directive,

| — | adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the urban waste water treatment plants built to comply with the requirements of Articles 4 to 7 of Directive 91/271/EEC are designed, constructed, operated and maintained to guarantee sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions and to ensure that, when the plants are being designed, seasonal variations of the load are taken into account in 617 agglomerations, in accordance with Article 10 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the urban waste water treatment plants built to comply with the requirements of Articles 4 to 7 of Directive 91/271/EEC are designed, constructed, operated and maintained to guarantee sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions and to ensure that, when the plants are being designed, seasonal variations of the load are taken into account in 617 agglomerations, in accordance with Article 10 of that directive;

| — | has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and/or Article 4 and/or Article 5 as well as Article 10 of Directive 91/271/EEC; |
| --- | --- |

—

has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and/or Article 4 and/or Article 5 as well as Article 10 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the Commission complains that the Italian Republic has not implemented correctly, in various parts of its territory, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment.

First of all, the Commission finds that there have been various infringements of Article 3 of the directive, which provides in the second indent of its paragraph (1) and in its paragraph (2) that Member States were required to ensure that, by 31 December 2005 at the latest, all agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 2 000 were provided with collection systems satisfying the requirements of Annex I(A). In numerous agglomerations situated in the regions of Abruzzo, Calabria, Campania, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Lombardy, Puglia, Sicily, Aosta Valley and Veneto, that requirement was not properly complied with.

In addition, under Article 4(1) and (3) of Directive 91/271/EEC, Member States were required to ensure, by 31 December 2005 at the latest, as far as discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000 are concerned, or those from agglomerations with a population equivalent of between 2 000 and 10 000, that urban waste water entering collecting systems was, before discharge, subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, in accordance with the relevant requirements of Annex I(B). The Commission has found that those provisions have not been complied with in a large number of agglomerations situated in the regions of Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Lazio, Liguria, Lombardy, Marche, Puglia, Piedmont, Sardinia, Sicily, Tuscany, Umbria, Aosta Valley and Veneto.

Next, under Article 5(2) and (3) of the directive, Member States were required to ensure by 31 December 1998 at the latest that, for all discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000, urban waste water entering collecting systems was, before discharge into sensitive areas, subject to more stringent treatment than that described in Article 4. The Commission has found that those provisions have not been complied with in a series of agglomerations situated in the regions of Basilicata, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Lazio, Marche, Puglia, Sardinia and Veneto.

Then, as regards the sensitive areas, Article 5(4) of the directive provides the possibility of not applying the requirements set out in Article 5(2) and (3) for individual urban waste water treatment plants where it can be shown that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all urban waste water treatment plants in a specific sensitive area is at least 75 % for total phosphorus and at least 75 % for total nitrogen. That has not been demonstrated for various sensitive areas on the Italian territory.

Lastly, the failure to comply with Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC also entails an infringement of Article 10 of the directive, which provides that urban waste water treatment plants must be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to ensure sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions.

---

(1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/12

---

Appeal brought on 11 September 2019 by Bruno Gollnisch against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-95/18, Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case C-676/19 P)

(2019/C 363/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bruno Gollnisch (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, avocat)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 (T-95/18); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 (T-95/18);

| — | refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | award the appellant the sum of EUR 12 500 in respect of procedural costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the appellant the sum of EUR 12 500 in respect of procedural costs;

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

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

In the event of the appeal being upheld, the appellant also claims that the Court should:

| — | if it considers that it has sufficient information, itself rule on the substance of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

if it considers that it has sufficient information, itself rule on the substance of the case;

| — | annul the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 23 October 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 23 October 2017;

| — | grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance;

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

—

order the Parliament to pay all the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging retroactive application in defavorem of subsequent case-law in order to declare the action inadmissible
  In order to dismiss the action, the judgment under appeal retroactively, unfavourably and unlawfully applied case-law of the Court from the period after the action was brought, even though the action was explicitly described as admissible under the previously existing situation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging retroactive application in defavorem of subsequent case-law in order to declare the action inadmissible

In order to dismiss the action, the judgment under appeal retroactively, unfavourably and unlawfully applied case-law of the Court from the period after the action was brought, even though the action was explicitly described as admissible under the previously existing situation.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging refusal to apply Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights
  The General Court held that those two articles did not apply to the case, even though it was clear from Article 52 of the Charter and the explanations of its articles recognised in the case-law of the Court that they were relevant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging refusal to apply Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights

The General Court held that those two articles did not apply to the case, even though it was clear from Article 52 of the Charter and the explanations of its articles recognised in the case-law of the Court that they were relevant.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal, alleging incorrect interpretation on the case-law relating to the right to be heard
  The judgment under appeal incorrectly relied on a judgment of the Court in order to deny the appellant his right to an oral hearing, even though that judgment concerned only interveners in specific and marginal proceedings which, moreover, authorised an oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal, alleging incorrect interpretation on the case-law relating to the right to be heard

The judgment under appeal incorrectly relied on a judgment of the Court in order to deny the appellant his right to an oral hearing, even though that judgment concerned only interveners in specific and marginal proceedings which, moreover, authorised an oral hearing.

| 4. | Fourth ground of appeal, alleging contradictory reasoning and infringement of the rights of the defence
  In order to hold that it was lawful for a document not to have been disclosed to the applicant during the proceedings at issue, the General Court gave that document contradictory classifications, resulting in an infringement of the rights of the defence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground of appeal, alleging contradictory reasoning and infringement of the rights of the defence

In order to hold that it was lawful for a document not to have been disclosed to the applicant during the proceedings at issue, the General Court gave that document contradictory classifications, resulting in an infringement of the rights of the defence.

---

General Court

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/13

---

Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-313/15 and T-317/15) (1)

(Rules on the use of languages - Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators - Choice of second language from three languages - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality - Manifestly well-founded action)

(2019/C 363/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, F. Simonetti and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Re:

In Case T-313/15, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/301/15 to draw up a reserve list of administrators (AD 5) (OJ 2015 C 92 A, p.1), and, in Case T-317/15, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/3012/15 to draw up a reserve list of administrators in the field of audit (AD 5) (OJ 2015 C 99 A, p.1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Cases T-313/15 and T-317/15 are joined for the purpose of the present order. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Cases T-313/15 and T-317/15 are joined for the purpose of the present order.

| 2. | The notice of open competition EPSO/AD/301/15 to draw up a reserve list of administrators (AD 5) and the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/3012/15 to draw up a reserve list of administrators in the field of audit (AD 5) are annulled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The notice of open competition EPSO/AD/301/15 to draw up a reserve list of administrators (AD 5) and the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/3012/15 to draw up a reserve list of administrators in the field of audit (AD 5) are annulled.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Italian Republic. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Italian Republic.

| 4. | The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/14

---

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2019 — Romańska v Frontex

(Case T-212/18) (1)

(Civil Service - Contract Staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS - Termination - Grounds for termination - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Discrimination and psychological harassment - Compensation claim - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2019/C 363/20)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Karolina Romańska (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: A. Tetkowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (represented by: H. Caniard and S. Drew, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Currall and G. Ostaszewski, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 14 June 2017 by which the Executive Director of Frontex, acting as the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment, terminated the applicant’s employment contract with effect at the end of an eight-month notice period and, secondly, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered on account of discrimination and psychological harassment by Frontex which culminated in the decision to terminate her contract.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Karolina Romańska shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Karolina Romańska shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/14

---

Order of the General Court of 9 September 2019 — Shore Capital International v EUIPO — Circle Imperium (The Inner Circle)

(Case T-575/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark The Inner Circle - Earlier EU word mark InnerCircle - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2019/C 363/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shore Capital International Ltd (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Circle Imperium BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 (Case R 1402/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Shore Capital International and Circle Imperium.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Shore Capital International Ltd shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Shore Capital International Ltd shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/15

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 September 2019 — Athanasiadou and Soulantikas v Commission

(Case T-762/18 R)

(Application for interim relief - Financial provisions (budget, financial framework, own resources, combating fraud) - Enforcement - Application for suspension - Admissibility - No urgency)

(2019/C 363/22)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Sofia Athanasiadou (Athens, Greece), Konstantinos Soulantikas (Athens) (represented by: M. Lappa, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 299 TFEU for suspension of enforcement of Commission Decision C(2017) 5883 final of 22 August 2017, of the order to pay of 30 October 2018, affixed to the copy of the enforcement order issued on the basis of Commission Decision C(2017) 5883 final of 22 August 2017, and of any other related enforcement measure.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | Sofia Athanasiadou and Konstantinos Soulantikas shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sofia Athanasiadou and Konstantinos Soulantikas shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/16

---

Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Giorgio Armani v EUIPO — Invicta Watch Company of America (GLYCINE)

(Case T-209/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 363/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: J. Rether and M. Kinkeldey, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc. (Hollywood, Florida, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 (Case R 578/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Giorgio Armani and Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Giorgio Armani SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Giorgio Armani SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/16

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 1 July 2019 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament

(Case T-388/19 R)

(Application for interim measures - European Parliament - Verification of the credentials - No prima facie case)

(2019/C 363/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Puigdemont i Casamajó (Waterloo, Belgium) and Comín i Oliveres (Waterlo) (represented by: B. Bekaert, B. Emmerson, G. Boye and S. Bekaert, avocats)

Defendant: European Parliament

Re:

Application submitted under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, to suspend the implementation of various decisions of the European Parliament ordered to prevent the applicants from sitting in Parliament as elected members and, second, to direct Parliament to take all necessary measures, including a declaration of the applicants’ privileges and immunities, to enable them to sit in Parliament as from 2 July 2019

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/17

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Sophia Group v Parliament

(Case T-578/19 R)

(Interim measures - Public service contracts - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency)

(2019/C 363/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sophia Group (Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Schneider and C.-H. de la Vallée Poussin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Tapper Brandberg and S. Toliušis, Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures seeking, first, the suspension of operation of the Parliament’s decision dated 30 July 2019 to award Lot No 1 of the tender for the ‘Provision of Buildings HelpDesk services’ (Call for tenders 06A0010/2019/M011) to another tenderer, and, secondly, the suspension of the contract concluded with that other tenderer.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/18

---

Action brought on 18 July 2019 – DI v ECB

(Case T-514/19)

(2019/C 363/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the ECB Executive Board of 7 May 2019 imposing the disciplinary dismissal without notice; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the ECB Executive Board of 7 May 2019 imposing the disciplinary dismissal without notice;

| — | annul the decision of the ECB Executive Board of 25 June 2019 refusing to reopen the disciplinary proceedings further to the closure of criminal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the ECB Executive Board of 25 June 2019 refusing to reopen the disciplinary proceedings further to the closure of criminal proceedings;

| — | as a consequence, order the full reinstatement of the applicant as of 11 May 2019 with all related financial entitlements and with the appropriate publicity in order to restore his good name; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence, order the full reinstatement of the applicant as of 11 May 2019 with all related financial entitlements and with the appropriate publicity in order to restore his good name;

| — | in any case, order the compensation of the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant, evaluated ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000: |
| --- | --- |

—

in any case, order the compensation of the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant, evaluated ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000:

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

—

order the defendant to reimburse all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the contested measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the contested measures.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 8.3.2 of the ECB Staff Rules. It is alleged that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated while time-barred. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 8.3.2 of the ECB Staff Rules. It is alleged that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated while time-barred.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle that disciplinary proceedings arising out of a criminal offence must await the outcome of the criminal trial, together with breach of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle that disciplinary proceedings arising out of a criminal offence must await the outcome of the criminal trial, together with breach of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Disciplinary Committee exceeded its mission. It is alleged that Article 8.3.7 of the ECB Staff Rules was breached, along with the principle of impartiality as embodied in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Disciplinary Committee exceeded its mission. It is alleged that Article 8.3.7 of the ECB Staff Rules was breached, along with the principle of impartiality as embodied in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the presumption of innocence. It is alleged that Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU was breached. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the presumption of innocence. It is alleged that Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU was breached.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging violation of the principle that disciplinary proceedings be conducted within a reasonable period and violation of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging violation of the principle that disciplinary proceedings be conducted within a reasonable period and violation of the duty of care.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, violation of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, violation of the principle of proportionality.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/19

---

Action brought on 26 July 2019 – TestBioTech v Commission

(Case T-534/19)

(2019/C 363/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 20 May 2019, refusing to revoke or amend Commission Implementing Decision 2018/2046 of 19 December 2018; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 20 May 2019, refusing to revoke or amend Commission Implementing Decision 2018/2046 of 19 December 2018; (1)

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law in that the Commission conducted its assessment of the maize in question in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 641/2004. (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law in that the Commission conducted its assessment of the maize in question in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 641/2004. (2)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of scientific assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of scientific assessment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission unlawfully failed to request an event-specific post-marketing monitoring plan. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission unlawfully failed to request an event-specific post-marketing monitoring plan.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/2046 of 19 December 2018 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122, and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017 and 59122 and repealing Decision 2011/366/EU (notified under document C (2018) 8238) (OJ 2018 L 327, p. 70).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 641/2004 of 6 April 2004 on detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the application for the authorisation of new genetically modified food and feed, the notification of existing products and adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material which has benefited from a favourable risk evaluation (OJ 2004 L 102, p. 14).

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/19

---

Action brought on 15 August 2019 – AlzChem Group v Commission

(Case T-569/19)

(2019/C 363/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AlzChem Group AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Borsos and J. Guerrero Pérez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

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

—

declare the application admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the Decision C(2019)5602 of the Secretary General of the European Commission pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), of 22 July 2019, in response to application No GESTDEM 2019/2311; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision C(2019)5602 of the Secretary General of the European Commission pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), of 22 July 2019, in response to application No GESTDEM 2019/2311; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the application of certain exceptions to the general rule to grant access to documents, in light of the facts at issue:






  — | the request does not concern any case-file or investigative document, and therefore does not concern or affect the purpose of investigations (Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001) or the Commission’s decision-making process (Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001); |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the application of certain exceptions to the general rule to grant access to documents, in light of the facts at issue:

—

the request does not concern any case-file or investigative document, and therefore does not concern or affect the purpose of investigations (Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001) or the Commission’s decision-making process (Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001);

| — | the request should not be refused based on the protection of the purpose of investigations (Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No (EC) 1049/2001) or the Commission’s decision making process (Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001); |
| --- | --- |

—

the request should not be refused based on the protection of the purpose of investigations (Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No (EC) 1049/2001) or the Commission’s decision making process (Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001);

| — | the request does not concern any information or data of commercial interest that needs to be protected (Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001); |
| --- | --- |

—

the request does not concern any information or data of commercial interest that needs to be protected (Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001);

| — | the contested decision applies exceptions for disclosure in a discriminatory fashion, as they are superseded by the Commission’s actions and conduct in other similar situations – this is prohibited by EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

the contested decision applies exceptions for disclosure in a discriminatory fashion, as they are superseded by the Commission’s actions and conduct in other similar situations – this is prohibited by EU law;

| — | the application of any exception for disclosure is superseded by an overriding public interest for disclosure in order to ensure an effective judicial review (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights). |
| --- | --- |

—

the application of any exception for disclosure is superseded by an overriding public interest for disclosure in order to ensure an effective judicial review (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons regarding the refusal of access to a non-confidential version, partial access, or access to the documents from the Commission’s premises, pursuant to Articles 4(6) and 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons regarding the refusal of access to a non-confidential version, partial access, or access to the documents from the Commission’s premises, pursuant to Articles 4(6) and 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

---

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

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/20

---

Action brought on 21 August 2019 — Sophia Group v Parliament

(Case T-578/19)

(2019/C 363/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sophia Group (Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Schneider and C.-H. de la Vallée Poussin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present application for annulment admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present application for annulment admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently, annul the decision of the European Parliament to award Lot 1 of the contract for the provision of Buildings HelpDesk services (Call for tenders No 06A0010/2019/M011) to Computer Resources International S.A., which has its registered office at 11 Rue de l’Industrie, 8399 Windhof, Luxembourg; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul the decision of the European Parliament to award Lot 1 of the contract for the provision of Buildings HelpDesk services (Call for tenders No 06A0010/2019/M011) to Computer Resources International S.A., which has its registered office at 11 Rue de l’Industrie, 8399 Windhof, Luxembourg;

| — | if necessary, annul:






  — | the Parliament’s decision of an unknown date signing the contract relating to Lot 1 of the contract for the provision of Buildings HelpDesk services (Call for tenders No 06A0010/2019/M011); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

if necessary, annul:

—

the Parliament’s decision of an unknown date signing the contract relating to Lot 1 of the contract for the provision of Buildings HelpDesk services (Call for tenders No 06A0010/2019/M011);

| — | the contract concluded with the successful tenderer designated in connection with Lot 1 of the contract for the provision of Buildings HelpDesk services (Call for tenders No 06A0010/2019/M011); |
| --- | --- |

—

the contract concluded with the successful tenderer designated in connection with Lot 1 of the contract for the provision of Buildings HelpDesk services (Call for tenders No 06A0010/2019/M011);

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs, including procedural compensation. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs, including procedural compensation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 160 and 167 of, and points 16.3, 18.2 and 21.1 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, misuse of powers, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the general principles of competition, transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts. Under the first plea, the applicant submits that some of the award criteria on the basis of which the successful tenderer was designated fall under the qualitative selection, not the award, even though the selection criteria are strictly linked to the assessment of candidates or tenderers and the award criteria are strictly linked to the assessment of tenders and must make it possible to identify the most economically advantageous tender. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 160 and 167 of, and points 16.3, 18.2 and 21.1 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, misuse of powers, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the general principles of competition, transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts. Under the first plea, the applicant submits that some of the award criteria on the basis of which the successful tenderer was designated fall under the qualitative selection, not the award, even though the selection criteria are strictly linked to the assessment of candidates or tenderers and the award criteria are strictly linked to the assessment of tenders and must make it possible to identify the most economically advantageous tender.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging infringement of Articles 160 and 167 of, and point 18.2 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046, misuse of powers, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the general principles of competition, transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts, in that some of the award criteria on the basis of which the successful tenderer for Lot 1 was designated were not linked to the subject matter of the contract and were, at the very least, vague and imprecise even though the award criteria must make it possible to identify the most economically advantageous tender, must be linked to and proportionate with the subject matter of the contract or lot concerned, must be clear and precise and may not leave unconditional freedom of choice in awarding the contract. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of Articles 160 and 167 of, and point 18.2 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046, misuse of powers, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the general principles of competition, transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts, in that some of the award criteria on the basis of which the successful tenderer for Lot 1 was designated were not linked to the subject matter of the contract and were, at the very least, vague and imprecise even though the award criteria must make it possible to identify the most economically advantageous tender, must be linked to and proportionate with the subject matter of the contract or lot concerned, must be clear and precise and may not leave unconditional freedom of choice in awarding the contract.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging infringement of Articles 160 and 167 of, and points 18.2 and 18.4 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046, misuse of powers, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the general principles of competition, transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts, in that the references requested from tenderers in the tender specifications in order to prove their technical and professional capacity to perform Lot 1 were not linked to the subject matter of the contract, were not proportionate and were vague and imprecise. The applicant claims that the selection criteria must be linked and proportionate to the subject matter of the contract in order not to result in a distortion of competition and must be clear and precise. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of Articles 160 and 167 of, and points 18.2 and 18.4 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046, misuse of powers, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the general principles of competition, transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts, in that the references requested from tenderers in the tender specifications in order to prove their technical and professional capacity to perform Lot 1 were not linked to the subject matter of the contract, were not proportionate and were vague and imprecise. The applicant claims that the selection criteria must be linked and proportionate to the subject matter of the contract in order not to result in a distortion of competition and must be clear and precise.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 170 of, and points 18.6, 30.2 and 31.1 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the general EU law principles of transparency, competition and equal treatment, infringement of the principle that reasons must be stated for acts of the EU institutions, misuse of powers and infringement of the principle of sound administration. Those infringements were committed in so far as the ratings attributed to the applicant’s tender and that of the successful tenderer for the contract in the light of nine ‘quality’ award criteria lack adequate reasoning and/or are accompanied only by vague and imprecise comments, whereas any contract award decision must provide an adequate statement of reasons enabling tenderers to know the objective, specific and precise reasons underlying each of the grades attributed to the various tenders and must state the advantages and disadvantages of each of the tenders submitted in the light of the criteria set out in the tender specifications. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 170 of, and points 18.6, 30.2 and 31.1 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the general EU law principles of transparency, competition and equal treatment, infringement of the principle that reasons must be stated for acts of the EU institutions, misuse of powers and infringement of the principle of sound administration. Those infringements were committed in so far as the ratings attributed to the applicant’s tender and that of the successful tenderer for the contract in the light of nine ‘quality’ award criteria lack adequate reasoning and/or are accompanied only by vague and imprecise comments, whereas any contract award decision must provide an adequate statement of reasons enabling tenderers to know the objective, specific and precise reasons underlying each of the grades attributed to the various tenders and must state the advantages and disadvantages of each of the tenders submitted in the light of the criteria set out in the tender specifications.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/22

---

Action brought on 23 August 2019 — EJ v EIB

(Case T-585/19)

(2019/C 363/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: EJ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded

consequently:

| — | annul the decision of 16 February 2018 limiting to 18 months the retroactive entitlement to the payment of travel expenses incurred because of the serious illness of the applicant’s daughter and the decision of 23 March 2018 limiting to 5 years the retroactive entitlement to double dependent child allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 16 February 2018 limiting to 18 months the retroactive entitlement to the payment of travel expenses incurred because of the serious illness of the applicant’s daughter and the decision of 23 March 2018 limiting to 5 years the retroactive entitlement to double dependent child allowance;

| — | in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of 14 May 2019 confirming those decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of 14 May 2019 confirming those decisions;

| — | order payment of compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order payment of compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2.2.3 of the administrative provisions and Article 1 of the HIS’s reimbursement ceilings, and manifest error of assessment |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2.2.3 of the administrative provisions and Article 1 of the HIS’s reimbursement ceilings, and manifest error of assessment

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the principle of sound administration.
  The applicant also seeks an order requiring the defendant to pay the double dependent child allowance for the period from 1 September 2007 to 31 May 2012 and payment of travel costs incurred on account of the serious illness of the applicant’s daughter from 1 September 2007 to 18 February 2018, the amounts due to be increased by default interest at the rate of the European Central Bank plus two percentage points. Lastly, the applicant seeks compensation for the non-material damage suffered, assessed at EUR 2 000. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the principle of sound administration.

The applicant also seeks an order requiring the defendant to pay the double dependent child allowance for the period from 1 September 2007 to 31 May 2012 and payment of travel costs incurred on account of the serious illness of the applicant’s daughter from 1 September 2007 to 18 February 2018, the amounts due to be increased by default interest at the rate of the European Central Bank plus two percentage points. Lastly, the applicant seeks compensation for the non-material damage suffered, assessed at EUR 2 000.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/23

---

Action brought on 26 August 2019 — PL v Commission

(Case T-586/19)

(2019/C 363/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PL (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 12 December 2018 establishing the applicant’s 2017 CDR; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 12 December 2018 establishing the applicant’s 2017 CDR;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the Commission’s decision establishing the applicant’s career development report in respect of 2017 (2017 CDR), the latter relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 22a and 22b of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (the Staff Regulations) and infringement by the DG of DG HR of his duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 22a and 22b of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (the Staff Regulations) and infringement by the DG of DG HR of his duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which confers on the applicant the right to good administration and, in particular, the right to have his affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which confers on the applicant the right to good administration and, in particular, the right to have his affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general implementing provisions for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the duty to state reasons and failure to observe the rights of the defence. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general implementing provisions for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the duty to state reasons and failure to observe the rights of the defence.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/24

---

Action brought on 26 August 2019 — Frutas Tono v EUIPO — Agrocazalla (Marién)

(Case T-587/19)

(2019/C 363/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Frutas Tono, SL (Benifairo de la Valldigna, Spain) (represented by: A. Cañizares Doménech, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agrocazalla, SL (Lorca, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union figurative mark Marién — Application for registration No 15 146 021

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2019 in Case R 171/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and, accordingly, set aside the costs order made against the applicant before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal and, instead, make a further order granting suspension of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO until such time as that Office gives a decision on the declaration of invalidity sought in respect of the opposing mark; or, in the alternative, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, accordingly, set aside the costs order made against the applicant before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal and, instead, make a further order granting suspension of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO until such time as that Office gives a decision on the declaration of invalidity sought in respect of the opposing mark; or, in the alternative,

| — | if, when judgment is given by the Court, the opposing mark has already been declared invalid by EUIPO, annul, in addition, the decision of the Board of Appeal, on the ground that it failed duly to analyse the effect on the compatibility of registration of the signs at issue, when it ought to have stayed the proceedings of its own motion; or, in the alternative, |
| --- | --- |

—

if, when judgment is given by the Court, the opposing mark has already been declared invalid by EUIPO, annul, in addition, the decision of the Board of Appeal, on the ground that it failed duly to analyse the effect on the compatibility of registration of the signs at issue, when it ought to have stayed the proceedings of its own motion; or, in the alternative,

| — | in the event that the Court does not find as above, declare that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, for all of the reasons argued previously; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the event that the Court does not find as above, declare that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, for all of the reasons argued previously; and

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Priority right of the proprietor of the contested mark over the Spanish national marks 1798380 MARIEN, applied for on 12 January 1994 for Class 39; 1800302 MARIEN, applied for on 25 January 1994 for Class 35; and 2222325 MARIEN, applied for on 23 March 1999 for Class 31; |
| --- | --- |

—

Priority right of the proprietor of the contested mark over the Spanish national marks 1798380 MARIEN, applied for on 12 January 1994 for Class 39; 1800302 MARIEN, applied for on 25 January 1994 for Class 35; and 2222325 MARIEN, applied for on 23 March 1999 for Class 31;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/25

---

Action brought on 28 August 2019 – Healios v EUIPO – Helios Kliniken (Healios)

(Case T-591/19)

(2019/C 363/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Healios KK (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: P. Venohr, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Helios Kliniken GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Healios – Application for registration No 14 267 041

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2019 in Case R 341/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as the appeal was allowed and the contested application was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as the appeal was allowed and the contested application was rejected;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Sufficient proofs of genuine use has not been provided, especially for ‘medical and bacteriology services’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Sufficient proofs of genuine use has not been provided, especially for ‘medical and bacteriology services’;

| — | There is no or low similarity of the goods and services, especially when comparing medical and bacteriology services in class 5; |
| --- | --- |

—

There is no or low similarity of the goods and services, especially when comparing medical and bacteriology services in class 5;

| — | The graphic element and the perception of the relevant public was not sufficiently assessed. |
| --- | --- |

—

The graphic element and the perception of the relevant public was not sufficiently assessed.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/25

---

Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Chypre v EUIPO – Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)

(Case T-593/19)

(2019/C 363/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GRILLOUMI BURGER – Application for registration No 15 963 283

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2019 in Case R 1297/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant for Annulment. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant for Annulment.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/26

---

Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Axactor v EUIPO – Axa (AXACTOR)

(Case T-594/19)

(2019/C 363/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Axactor SE (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: D. Stone, A. Dykes, A. Leonelli, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Axa SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark AXACTOR – Application for registration No 15 827 728

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2019 in Case R 479/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and intervener to bear their own costs and pay for those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and intervener to bear their own costs and pay for those of the applicant.

Plea in law

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

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/27

---

Action brought on 6 September 2019 — Helsingin kaupunki v Commission

(Case T-597/19)

(2019/C 363/36)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Helsingin kaupunki (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: I. Aalto-Setälä, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul, in whole or in part, the Commission’s Decision of 28 June 2019 on State aid SA.33846 — (2015/C) (ex 2011/CP); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, in whole or in part, the Commission’s Decision of 28 June 2019 on State aid SA.33846 — (2015/C) (ex 2011/CP);

| — | order the Commission to pay the city’s costs in full, together with interest. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the city’s costs in full, together with interest.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU in the contested decision






  — | The Commission manifestly misapplied the market economy operator principle. Further, in the course of its investigation, it failed to take due account of all the information and statements communicated during the investigation procedure, which showed that the loans at issue were granted under normal market conditions and in accordance with the procedures that would have been followed by a prudent investor operating in a market economy under comparable economic conditions. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU in the contested decision

—

The Commission manifestly misapplied the market economy operator principle. Further, in the course of its investigation, it failed to take due account of all the information and statements communicated during the investigation procedure, which showed that the loans at issue were granted under normal market conditions and in accordance with the procedures that would have been followed by a prudent investor operating in a market economy under comparable economic conditions.

| — | The assessment of the measures at issue is contrary to the Commission’s practice in taking decisions and to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Commission used methods of calculation that are not suitable for assessing the specific aspects of operating loans. |
| --- | --- |

—

The assessment of the measures at issue is contrary to the Commission’s practice in taking decisions and to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Commission used methods of calculation that are not suitable for assessing the specific aspects of operating loans.

| — | In addition, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the disputed equipment loan could not be classified as existing aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

In addition, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the disputed equipment loan could not be classified as existing aid.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the reasons for the contested decision do not meet the requirements of Article 296 TFEU or of the relevant case-law






  — | The reasons given for the contested decision are insufficient, in particular in relation to the assessment as to whether the purchase price for the business of Helsingin Bussiliikenne (HelB) was a market price, the Commission having disputed without cause the accuracy of the expert’s report submitted by Finland, without putting forward its own clear and unequivocal view concerning the market price. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the reasons for the contested decision do not meet the requirements of Article 296 TFEU or of the relevant case-law

—

The reasons given for the contested decision are insufficient, in particular in relation to the assessment as to whether the purchase price for the business of Helsingin Bussiliikenne (HelB) was a market price, the Commission having disputed without cause the accuracy of the expert’s report submitted by Finland, without putting forward its own clear and unequivocal view concerning the market price.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to the general principles of EU law, in particular the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of proportionality, and that it infringes the rights of the defence






  — | The Commission, erroneously and in breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, found in the contested decision that the equipment loan granted to HKL-Bussiliikenne constituted aid, by applying a stricter interpretation to the concept of the existing aid scheme than Finland had previously been aware of. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to the general principles of EU law, in particular the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of proportionality, and that it infringes the rights of the defence

—

The Commission, erroneously and in breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, found in the contested decision that the equipment loan granted to HKL-Bussiliikenne constituted aid, by applying a stricter interpretation to the concept of the existing aid scheme than Finland had previously been aware of.

| — | The order for recovery made by the Commission in the contested decision manifestly exceeds what is necessary to remove the unfair competitive advantage caused by the alleged State aid. The price ultimately paid for the business of HelB was a market price. The purchaser of the business did not derive an unfair advantage, as the aid was taken into account in the purchase price. The extension of the recovery order to include the purchaser of the business is thus contrary to the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

—

The order for recovery made by the Commission in the contested decision manifestly exceeds what is necessary to remove the unfair competitive advantage caused by the alleged State aid. The price ultimately paid for the business of HelB was a market price. The purchaser of the business did not derive an unfair advantage, as the aid was taken into account in the purchase price. The extension of the recovery order to include the purchaser of the business is thus contrary to the principle of proportionality.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/28

---

Action brought on 7 September 2019 – Osório & Gonçalves v EUIPO – Miguel Torres (in.fi.ni.tu.de)

(Case T-601/19)

(2019/C 363/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Osório & Gonçalves, SA (Galamares, Portugal) (represented by: D. Araújo e Sá Serras Pereira, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark in.fi.ni.tu.de – Application for registration No 15 982 994

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2019 in Case R 1579/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 97(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 97(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/29

---

Action brought on 3 September 2019 – Eugene Perma France v EUIPO – SPI Investments Group (NATURANOVE)

(Case T-602/19)

(2019/C 363/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eugene Perma France (Saint-Denis, France) (represented by: S. Havard Duclos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SPI Investments Group, SL (Sant Just Desvern, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark NATURANOVE – Application for registration No 17 007 949

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 in Case R 2161/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and ordered the Applicant to bear the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings, fixed to the amount of EUR 1 170; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and ordered the Applicant to bear the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings, fixed to the amount of EUR 1 170;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/30

---

Action brought on 4 September 2019 – Inova Semiconductors v EUIPO – Venta Servicio LED (ISELED)

(Case T-604/19)

(2019/C 363/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Inova Semiconductors GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Venta Servicio LED, SL (Martorell, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ISELED in the colours black, red, orange, yellow, green and blue – International registration designating the European Union No 1 343 583

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2019 in Case R 2149/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the plaintiff for the purposes of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the plaintiff for the purposes of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of essential procedural requirements in Article 75(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of essential procedural requirements in Article 75(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/31

---

Action brought on 9 September 2019 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission

(Case T-610/19)

(2019/C 363/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: P. Linsmeier, U. Soltész, C. von Köckritz and P. Lohs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision of 28 June 2019 rejecting the application for payment of default interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision of 28 June 2019 rejecting the application for payment of default interest;

| — | order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to pay the applicant financial compensation of EUR 2 580 374,07 for the loss incurred by the applicant because, for the period from 16 January 2015 to 19 February 2019, it was unable to use the amount wrongly paid with the result that it was unable to generate the income that it usually generates with that amount or reduce its capital costs accordingly, or |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to pay the applicant financial compensation of EUR 2 580 374,07 for the loss incurred by the applicant because, for the period from 16 January 2015 to 19 February 2019, it was unable to use the amount wrongly paid with the result that it was unable to generate the income that it usually generates with that amount or reduce its capital costs accordingly, or

| — | in the alternative, should the Court dismiss the second head of claim, pay the applicant financial compensation of EUR 1 750 522,83 for the loss incurred by the applicant because the Commission refused to pay it, for the period from 16 January 2015 to 19 February 2019, default interest on the amount of EUR 12 039 019, calculated on the basis of the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 percentage points, for the period from 16 January 2015 to 19 February 2019, or — in the further alternative — compensation in the amount of another sum deemed appropriate by the Court, calculated on the basis of a rate of default interest deemed appropriate by the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, should the Court dismiss the second head of claim, pay the applicant financial compensation of EUR 1 750 522,83 for the loss incurred by the applicant because the Commission refused to pay it, for the period from 16 January 2015 to 19 February 2019, default interest on the amount of EUR 12 039 019, calculated on the basis of the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 percentage points, for the period from 16 January 2015 to 19 February 2019, or — in the further alternative — compensation in the amount of another sum deemed appropriate by the Court, calculated on the basis of a rate of default interest deemed appropriate by the Court;

| — | declare that the amount to be paid by the Commission in accordance with the second and third heads of claim shall, for the period from the delivery of the judgment in the present case until payment in full by the Commission, also bear interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 percentage points, or in the alternative at another rate of default interest deemed appropriate by the Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the amount to be paid by the Commission in accordance with the second and third heads of claim shall, for the period from the delivery of the judgment in the present case until payment in full by the Commission, also bear interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 percentage points, or in the alternative at another rate of default interest deemed appropriate by the Court; and

| — | order the Commission and the European Union to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission and the European Union to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law (application for annulment): By refusing to pay default interest to the applicant, the Commission has infringed its duty to comply with the judgment of 13 December 2018, Deutsche Telekom v Commission (T-827/14, EU:T:2018:930), a duty which was confirmed by the judgment of 5 September 2019, European Union v Guardian Europe (C-447/17 P, EU:C:2019:672), thus infringing the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law (application for annulment): By refusing to pay default interest to the applicant, the Commission has infringed its duty to comply with the judgment of 13 December 2018, Deutsche Telekom v Commission (T-827/14, EU:T:2018:930), a duty which was confirmed by the judgment of 5 September 2019, European Union v Guardian Europe (C-447/17 P, EU:C:2019:672), thus infringing the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law (application for annulment): Infringement of the obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU
  The applicant submits in that regard that the reasons for the decision rejecting the application for payment of default interest are insufficient since that decision fails to explain sufficiently clearly the reason for the rejection of the application. It remains unclear whether the Commission assumes that Article 90 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (1) also definitively regulates the entitlement to default interest under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU and how such an interpretation is compatible with the settled case-law relating to the Commission’s obligation to pay default interest under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law (application for annulment): Infringement of the obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU

The applicant submits in that regard that the reasons for the decision rejecting the application for payment of default interest are insufficient since that decision fails to explain sufficiently clearly the reason for the rejection of the application. It remains unclear whether the Commission assumes that Article 90 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (1) also definitively regulates the entitlement to default interest under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU and how such an interpretation is compatible with the settled case-law relating to the Commission’s obligation to pay default interest under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law (claim for compensation): Loss incurred by the applicant due to it not having been able to use the overpaid amount of the unlawful fine, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 266, Article 268 and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, and, in the alternative, due to the Commission’s refusal to pay default interest |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law (claim for compensation): Loss incurred by the applicant due to it not having been able to use the overpaid amount of the unlawful fine, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 266, Article 268 and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, and, in the alternative, due to the Commission’s refusal to pay default interest

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/32

---

Action brought on 9 September 2019 – Iniciativa ciudadana - Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas v Commission

(Case T-611/19)

(2019/C 363/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Iniciativa ciudadana - Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas (Spain) (represented by: G. Boye, I. Elbal Sánchez, E. Valcuende Sillero and I. González Martínez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision 2019/1182 of 3 July 2019, refusing the registration of the citizens’ initiative (Iniciativa ciudadana) entitled ‘Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas’ (‘EU law, minority rights and democratisation of Spanish institutions’); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision 2019/1182 of 3 July 2019, refusing the registration of the citizens’ initiative (Iniciativa ciudadana) entitled ‘Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas’ (‘EU law, minority rights and democratisation of Spanish institutions’);

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the Commission’s decision refusing the registration of the aforementioned citizens’ initiative, in which the Commission was invited to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union, relating to the following matters: principles of legality and legal certainty, independence and impartiality of the courts, separation of powers, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, right to free elections, right to liberty and right to equal treatment.

The contested decision found that the actions proposed in the initiative fell outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements






  — | In that connection, it is claimed that the contested decision infringes Article 296(2) TFEU, under which legal acts of the institutions of the European Union are to state the reasons on which they are based, and the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative, (1) which states that where it refuses to register a proposed citizens’ initiative, the Commission is to inform the organisers ‘of the reasons for such refusal’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements

—

In that connection, it is claimed that the contested decision infringes Article 296(2) TFEU, under which legal acts of the institutions of the European Union are to state the reasons on which they are based, and the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative, (1) which states that where it refuses to register a proposed citizens’ initiative, the Commission is to inform the organisers ‘of the reasons for such refusal’.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaty or any legal rule relating to its implementation.






  — | In that connection, it is claimed that the contested decision refusing registration infringes Article 11 TEU, Article 24(1) TFEU and Article 4(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the aforementioned regulation, which implements those provisions of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaty or any legal rule relating to its implementation.

—

In that connection, it is claimed that the contested decision refusing registration infringes Article 11 TEU, Article 24(1) TFEU and Article 4(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the aforementioned regulation, which implements those provisions of the Treaty.

| 3. | Third plea in law, based on the nature of the actions proposed in the citizens’ initiative






  — | In that connection, it is claimed that none of the matters covered by the citizens’ initiative manifestly fall outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, based on the nature of the actions proposed in the citizens’ initiative

—

In that connection, it is claimed that none of the matters covered by the citizens’ initiative manifestly fall outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, relating to the compliance of the proposed citizens’ initiative with the EU legal framework






  — | In that connection, it is claimed that it is clear from the wording of Article 4(2)(b) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011, as well as the content of the initiative that is the subject matter of the dispute, that, in the present case, each and every one of the requirements under the applicable regulation has been met and, therefore, the initiative ought to have been registered. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, relating to the compliance of the proposed citizens’ initiative with the EU legal framework

—

In that connection, it is claimed that it is clear from the wording of Article 4(2)(b) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011, as well as the content of the initiative that is the subject matter of the dispute, that, in the present case, each and every one of the requirements under the applicable regulation has been met and, therefore, the initiative ought to have been registered.

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/33

---

Action brought on 12 September 2019 – Point Tec Products Electronic v EUIPO – Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon (Representation of two extended wings)

(Case T-615/19)

(2019/C 363/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Point Tec Products Electronic GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: D. Wiedemann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA (St-Imier, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark representing two extended wings – International registration designating the European Union No 1 349 160

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2019 in Case R 2427/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/34

---

Action brought on 12 September 2019 — Katjes Fassin v EUIPO — Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium (WONDERLAND)

(Case T-616/19)

(2019/C 363/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz and M. Breuer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium BV (Breda, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark WONDERLAND — Application No 16 263 295

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2019 in Case R 2164/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/35

---

Action brought on 16 September 2019 – ArcelorMittal Bremen v Commission

(Case T-623/19)

(2019/C 363/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ArcelorMittal Bremen GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and L. Buschmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | declare, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, that the Commission infringed the second subparagraph of Article 19(4) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU (1) by failing to decide on the total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a significant capacity extension of the product benchmark sub-installation for hot metal of the installation (Installation ID 60) in Bremen, communicated to it by the Federal Republic of Germany on 12 April 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, that the Commission infringed the second subparagraph of Article 19(4) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU (1) by failing to decide on the total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a significant capacity extension of the product benchmark sub-installation for hot metal of the installation (Installation ID 60) in Bremen, communicated to it by the Federal Republic of Germany on 12 April 2019;

| — | alternatively, annul the Commission’s decision of 19 July 2019 on the applicant’s request of 12 April 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul the Commission’s decision of 19 July 2019 on the applicant’s request of 12 April 2019;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law.

| | The applicant submits that the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 19(4) of Decision 2011/278/EU and not to reject the total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a significant capacity extension, communicated to it by the Federal Republic of Germany on 12 April 2019, since the requirements for a significant capacity extension within the meaning of Article 20(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU are met. |
| --- | --- |

The applicant submits that the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 19(4) of Decision 2011/278/EU and not to reject the total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a significant capacity extension, communicated to it by the Federal Republic of Germany on 12 April 2019, since the requirements for a significant capacity extension within the meaning of Article 20(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU are met.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/36

---

Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — VV v Commission

(Case T-242/18) (1)

(2019/C 363/45)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/36

---

Order of the General Court of 3 September 2019 — Puma v EUIPO — Carrefour (Representation of crossed lines)

(Case T-424/18) (1)

(2019/C 363/46)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/37

---

Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Café Camelo v EUIPO — Camel Brand (CAMEL BRAND FOOD PRODUCTS)

(Case T-244/19) (1)

(2019/C 363/47)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/37

---

Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Big Bang (LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY)

(Case T-376/19) (1)

(2019/C 363/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---