# Official Journal C 166/14 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 166 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6114 May 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 166

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6114 May 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2018/C 166/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2018/C 166/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2018/C 166/02 | Case C-524/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Luca Menci (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Failure to pay VAT due — Penalties — National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Criminal nature of the administrative penalty — Existence of the same offence — Article 52(1) — Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle — Conditions) | 2 |
| 2018/C 166/03 | Joined Cases C-688/15 and C-109/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — proceedings brought by Agnieška Anisimovienė and Others (C-688/15) and Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas VĮ (C-109/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes — Directive 94/19/EC — Article 1(1) — Deposits — Temporary situations deriving from normal banking transactions — Directive 97/9/EC — Second subparagraph of Article 2(2) — Money owed to or belonging to an investor and held on his behalf by an investment firm in connection with investment business — Credit institution which issues transferable securities — Funds transferred by individuals to that institution in respect of subscription to future transferable securities — Application of Directive 2004/39/EC — Insolvency of that institution before the transferable securities in question are issued — Public undertaking entrusted with the deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes — Ability to rely on Directives 94/19/EC and 97/9/EC against that undertaking) | 3 |
| 2018/C 166/04 | Case C-187/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC — Public service contracts — State printing office — Production of identity documents and other official documents — Award of contracts to an undertaking governed by private law without a procurement procedure first being conducted — Special security measures — Protection of the essential interests of the Member States) | 4 |
| 2018/C 166/05 | Case C-244/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2018 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA v European Commission (Appeal — Plant protection products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 — Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution — Inclusion of active substance metalaxyl in that list — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures — Individually concerned person) | 5 |
| 2018/C 166/06 | Case C-256/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Anti-dumping — Validity of a regulation seeking to implement a judgment of the Court declaring previous regulations invalid — Obligation to implement — Legal basis — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 14 — Setting of the criteria relating to the collection of anti-dumping duties by Member States — Direction suspending the repayment of anti-dumping duties by national customs authorities — Resumption of the proceeding that preceded the regulations declared invalid — Article 10 — Non-retroactivity — Community Customs Code — Article 221 — Time-bar — Article 236 — Repayment of duties not owed) | 5 |
| 2018/C 166/07 | Joined Cases C-327/16 and C-421/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Marc Jacob v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (C-327/16), Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics v Marc Lassus (C-421/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States — Directive 90/434/EEC — Article 8 — Exchange of securities — Capital gains relating to that transaction — Deferred taxation — Capital losses upon the subsequent transfer of securities received — Tax competence of the State of residence — Difference in treatment — Justification — Preservation of the allocation of fiscal competence between Member States) | 6 |
| 2018/C 166/08 | Case C-355/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Council of State, France) — Christian Picart v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Direct taxation — Transfer of the place of residence from a Member State to Switzerland — Taxation of unrealised gains on significant shareholdings in a number of companies established in the Member State of origin at the time of such transfer — Scope of the Agreement) | 7 |
| 2018/C 166/09 | Case C-384/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2018 — European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission (Appeal — Plant protection products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 — Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution — Inclusion of active substance copper compounds in that list — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures — Individually concerned person) | 8 |
| 2018/C 166/10 | Case C-431/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) v José Blanco Marqués (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 12 and 46a to 46c — Benefits of the same kind — Definition — Rule against overlapping — Definition — Conditions — National rule providing for a supplement to the total permanent incapacity pension for workers of at least 55 years of age — Suspension of the supplement in the event of employment or receipt of a retirement pension) | 8 |
| 2018/C 166/11 | Case C-470/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited, Maura Sheehy v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Right of members of the public concerned to a review procedure — Premature challenge — Concepts of a not prohibitively expensive procedure and of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of the directive — Applicability of the Aarhus Convention) | 9 |
| 2018/C 166/12 | Case C-482/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Georg Stollwitzer v ÖBB Personenverkehr AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Article 45 TFEU — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 21(1) — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 2, 6 and 16 — Reference date for the purpose of advancement — Discriminatory legislation of a Member State which does not allow periods of activity completed before reaching the age of 18 to be taken into account for the purpose of determining remuneration — Abolition of provisions that are contrary to the principle of equal treatment) | 10 |
| 2018/C 166/13 | Case C-533/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Volkswagen AG v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167 to 171 — Right to deduct VAT — Right to refunds of VAT for taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund — Article 178(a) — Rules governing the exercise of the right to deduct VAT — Directive 2008/9/EC — Detailed rules for the refund of VAT — Limitation period — Principle of fiscal neutrality — VAT charged and paid several years after delivery of the goods in question — Refusal to allow the exercise of the right to a refund due to the expiry of the time limit which should have started to run from the date of supply of the goods) | 11 |
| 2018/C 166/14 | Case C-537/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Garlsson Real Estate SA, in liquidation, Stefano Ricucci, Magiste International SA v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/6/EC — Market manipulation — Penalties — National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Criminal nature of the administrative penalties — Existence of the same offence — Article 52(1) — Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle — Conditions) | 12 |
| 2018/C 166/15 | Case C-551/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — J. Klein Schiphorst v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 7, 63 and 64 — Unemployment benefits — Unemployed person going to another Member State — Retention of entitlement to benefits — Duration) | 12 |
| 2018/C 166/16 | Case C-557/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Astellas Pharma GmbH v Helm AG, Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus (Fimea) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/83/EC — Medicinal products for human use — Articles 28 and 29 — Decentralised procedure for marketing authorisation for a medicinal product — Article 10 — Generic medicinal product — Data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product — Power of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned to determine the point in time from which the exclusivity period starts to run — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States concerned to review the determination of the point in time from which the exclusivity period starts to run — Effective judicial protection — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47) | 13 |
| 2018/C 166/17 | Case C-568/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürtingen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Faiz Rasool (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Payment services — Directive 2007/64/EC — Article 3(e) and (o) — Article 4(3) — Annex — Point 2 — Scope — Operation of multifunctional terminals enabling cash withdrawals in gaming arcades — Consistency of the practice of the national authorities in bringing prosecutions — Confiscation of sums obtained by means of an unlawful activity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 17) | 14 |
| 2018/C 166/18 | Case C-575/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Notaries — Nationality requirement — Article 51 TFEU — Connection with the exercise of official authority) | 15 |
| 2018/C 166/19 | Joined Cases C-596/16 and C-597/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Enzo Di Puma v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (C-596/16), Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) v Antonio Zecca (C-597/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/6/EC — Insider dealing — Penalties — National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts — Res judicata attached to a final criminal judgment relating to administrative proceedings — Final criminal judgment ordering acquittal in respect of insider dealing — Effectiveness of the penalties — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Criminal nature of the administrative sanction — Existence of the same offence — Article 52(1) — Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle — Conditions) | 15 |
| 2018/C 166/20 | Case C-104/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — SC Cali Esprou SRL v Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Recovery and recycling of waste — National environmental fund contribution — National marketing of packaged products and their packaging, without alteration — Polluter-pays principle — Status of polluter) | 16 |
| 2018/C 166/21 | Joined Cases C-133/17 and C-134/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Dănuţ Podilă and Others v Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători CFR Călători SA București (C-133/17), Costel Nicușor Mucea v SMDA Mureş Insolvency SRL, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of SC Industria Sârmei SA Campia Turzii (C-134/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and health of workers at work — Classification of work places as places characterised by particular or special conditions — Assessment of the risks to safety and health at work — Employer’s obligations) | 17 |
| 2018/C 166/22 | Case C-125/17: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italy) — Luigi Bisignani v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Free movement of capital — Articles 64 and 65 TFEU — Directive 2011/16/EU — Cooperation in the field of taxation — Transfer of capital to the Vatican City State — Obligation to declare a transfer of funds sent or received from abroad — Repeal) | 17 |
| 2018/C 166/23 | Case C-58/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de Paix du canton de Visé (Belgium) lodged on 30 January 2018 — Michel Schyns v Belfius Banque SA | 18 |
| 2018/C 166/24 | Case C-63/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 1 February 2018 — Vitali SpA v Autostrade per l’Italia SpA | 19 |
| 2018/C 166/25 | Case C-101/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Idi Srl v Arcadis — Agenzia Regionale Campana Difesa Suolo | 19 |
| 2018/C 166/26 | Case C-133/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 20 February 2018 — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics | 20 |
| 2018/C 166/27 | Case C-138/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 22 February 2018 — Skatteministeriet v Estron A/S | 21 |
| 2018/C 166/28 | Case C-147/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Almería (Spain) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Banco Mare Nostrum S.A. v Ignacio Jesús Berenguel Nieto, Carmen Sonia Salinas López | 21 |
| 2018/C 166/29 | Case C-154/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Labour Court, (Ireland) made on 27 February 2018 — Tomás Horgan, Claire Keegan v Minister for Education & Skills, Minister for Finance, Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General | 22 |
| 2018/C 166/30 | Case C-159/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 27 February 2018 — André Moens v Ryanair Ltd | 23 |
| 2018/C 166/31 | Case C-169/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 2 March 2018 — Atif Mahmood, Shabina Atif, Mohammed Ahsan, Noor Habib, Mohammed Haroon, Nik Bibi Haroon v Minister for Justice and Equality | 24 |
| 2018/C 166/32 | Case C-174/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 5 March 2018 — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v État belge | 25 |
| 2018/C 166/33 | Case C-190/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the justice de paix de Schaerbeek (Belgium) lodged on 13 March 2018 — Société nationale de chemins de fer belges (SNCB) v Gherasim Sorin Rusu | 25 |
| | General Court |
| 2018/C 166/34 | Case T-80/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland v EMA (Medicinal products for human use — Validation of an application for designation as an orphan medicinal product — Significant benefit — EMA decision refusing to validate an application for designation as an orphan medicinal product — Article 3(1)(b) and Article 5(1), (2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000) | 27 |
| 2018/C 166/35 | Case T-581/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 –Popotas v Ombudsman (Civil Service — Officials — Call for an expression of interest — Secretary General of the office of the European Ombudsman — Opinion of the Advisory Committee — Failure to take that opinion into consideration — Infringement of the selection procedure — Manifest errors of assessment — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Liability) | 27 |
| 2018/C 166/36 | Case T-806/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Agricola J.M. v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (CLOS DE LA TORRE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CLOS DE LA TORRE — Earlier national word mark TORRES — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion) | 28 |
| 2018/C 166/37 | Case T-235/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Dometic Sweden v EUIPO (MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 29 |
| 2018/C 166/38 | Case T-229/16: Order of the General Court of 19 March 2018 –Pio de Bragança v EUIPO — Ordem de São Miguel da Ala (QUIS UT DEUS) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark QUIS UT DEUS — Failure to apply for renewal of registration of the mark — Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration — No need to adjudicate) | 29 |
| 2018/C 166/39 | Case T-822/16: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2018 — KiK Textilien und Non-Food v EUIPO — FF Group Romania (_kix) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark _kix — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Articles 173(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure — Intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Response lodged out of time) | 30 |
| 2018/C 166/40 | Case T-130/17: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Action for annulment — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Commission decision amending the conditions for exemption from the EU requirements of the rules governing operation of the OPAL pipeline in regard to third-party access and tariff regulation — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility) | 31 |
| 2018/C 166/41 | Case T-134/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission (Interim proceedings — Access to documents — Documents relating to the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of a Commission decision on State aid implemented by Spain in favour of three professional football clubs — Rights of the defence — Refusal of access — Application for provisional measures — Lack of urgency) | 32 |
| 2018/C 166/42 | Case T-108/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — University of Koblenz-Landau v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency | 32 |
| 2018/C 166/43 | Case T-110/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Grange Backup Power v Commission | 33 |
| 2018/C 166/44 | Case T-136/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Kuota International v EUIPO — Sintema Sport (K) | 34 |
| 2018/C 166/45 | Case T-137/18: Action brought on 2 March 2018 — Chrome Hearts v EUIPO — Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry (Representation of a cross) | 35 |
| 2018/C 166/46 | Case T-147/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others | 36 |
| 2018/C 166/47 | Case T-148/18: Action brought on 2 March 2018 — UE v Commission | 37 |
| 2018/C 166/48 | Case T-179/18: Action brought on 7 March 2018 — Scordis, Papapetrou & Co and Others v Council and Others | 37 |
| 2018/C 166/49 | Case T-183/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VL and Others/Parliament | 38 |
| 2018/C 166/50 | Case T-187/18: Action brought on 9 March 2018 — VP v Cedefop | 39 |
| 2018/C 166/51 | Case T-188/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — Papaconstantinou and Others v Council and Others | 40 |
| 2018/C 166/52 | Case T-189/18: Action brought on 15 March 2018 — Lipitalia 2000 and Assograssi v Commission | 40 |
| 2018/C 166/53 | Case T-193/18: Action brought on 19 March 2018 — Andreas Stihl v EUIPO — Giro Travel (Combination of colours grey and orange) | 42 |
| 2018/C 166/54 | Case T-194/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International v EUIPO — Wessanen Benelux (BonNatura) | 42 |
| 2018/C 166/55 | Case T-196/18: Action brought on 20 March 2018 — Vital Capital Investments and Others v Council and Others | 43 |
| 2018/C 166/56 | Case T-201/18: Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Diusa Rendering and Assograssi v Commission | 44 |
| 2018/C 166/57 | Case T-202/18: Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Bruel v Commission | 45 |
| 2018/C 166/58 | Case T-209/18: Action brought on 22 March 2018 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Motor vehicles) | 46 |
| 2018/C 166/59 | Case T-210/18: Action brought on 22 March 2018 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Cars) | 46 |
| 2018/C 166/60 | Case T-213/18: Action brought on 27 March 2018 — Brita v EUIPO (Shape of tap for preparing and dispensing beverages) | 47 |
| 2018/C 166/61 | Case T-222/18: Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL) | 48 |
| 2018/C 166/62 | Case T-684/17: Order of the General Court of 13 mars 2018 — Amorepacific v EUIPO — Primavera Life (p primera Pure Sprout Energy) | 49 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2018/C 166/02

Case C-524/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Luca Menci (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Failure to pay VAT due — Penalties — National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Criminal nature of the administrative penalty — Existence of the same offence — Article 52(1) — Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle — Conditions)

2

2018/C 166/03

Joined Cases C-688/15 and C-109/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — proceedings brought by Agnieška Anisimovienė and Others (C-688/15) and Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas VĮ (C-109/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes — Directive 94/19/EC — Article 1(1) — Deposits — Temporary situations deriving from normal banking transactions — Directive 97/9/EC — Second subparagraph of Article 2(2) — Money owed to or belonging to an investor and held on his behalf by an investment firm in connection with investment business — Credit institution which issues transferable securities — Funds transferred by individuals to that institution in respect of subscription to future transferable securities — Application of Directive 2004/39/EC — Insolvency of that institution before the transferable securities in question are issued — Public undertaking entrusted with the deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes — Ability to rely on Directives 94/19/EC and 97/9/EC against that undertaking)

3

2018/C 166/04

Case C-187/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC — Public service contracts — State printing office — Production of identity documents and other official documents — Award of contracts to an undertaking governed by private law without a procurement procedure first being conducted — Special security measures — Protection of the essential interests of the Member States)

4

2018/C 166/05

Case C-244/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2018 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA v European Commission (Appeal — Plant protection products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 — Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution — Inclusion of active substance metalaxyl in that list — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures — Individually concerned person)

5

2018/C 166/06

Case C-256/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Anti-dumping — Validity of a regulation seeking to implement a judgment of the Court declaring previous regulations invalid — Obligation to implement — Legal basis — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 14 — Setting of the criteria relating to the collection of anti-dumping duties by Member States — Direction suspending the repayment of anti-dumping duties by national customs authorities — Resumption of the proceeding that preceded the regulations declared invalid — Article 10 — Non-retroactivity — Community Customs Code — Article 221 — Time-bar — Article 236 — Repayment of duties not owed)

5

2018/C 166/07

Joined Cases C-327/16 and C-421/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Marc Jacob v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (C-327/16), Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics v Marc Lassus (C-421/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States — Directive 90/434/EEC — Article 8 — Exchange of securities — Capital gains relating to that transaction — Deferred taxation — Capital losses upon the subsequent transfer of securities received — Tax competence of the State of residence — Difference in treatment — Justification — Preservation of the allocation of fiscal competence between Member States)

6

2018/C 166/08

Case C-355/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Council of State, France) — Christian Picart v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Direct taxation — Transfer of the place of residence from a Member State to Switzerland — Taxation of unrealised gains on significant shareholdings in a number of companies established in the Member State of origin at the time of such transfer — Scope of the Agreement)

7

2018/C 166/09

Case C-384/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2018 — European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission (Appeal — Plant protection products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 — Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution — Inclusion of active substance copper compounds in that list — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures — Individually concerned person)

8

2018/C 166/10

Case C-431/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) v José Blanco Marqués (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 12 and 46a to 46c — Benefits of the same kind — Definition — Rule against overlapping — Definition — Conditions — National rule providing for a supplement to the total permanent incapacity pension for workers of at least 55 years of age — Suspension of the supplement in the event of employment or receipt of a retirement pension)

8

2018/C 166/11

Case C-470/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited, Maura Sheehy v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Right of members of the public concerned to a review procedure — Premature challenge — Concepts of a not prohibitively expensive procedure and of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of the directive — Applicability of the Aarhus Convention)

9

2018/C 166/12

Case C-482/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Georg Stollwitzer v ÖBB Personenverkehr AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Article 45 TFEU — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 21(1) — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 2, 6 and 16 — Reference date for the purpose of advancement — Discriminatory legislation of a Member State which does not allow periods of activity completed before reaching the age of 18 to be taken into account for the purpose of determining remuneration — Abolition of provisions that are contrary to the principle of equal treatment)

10

2018/C 166/13

Case C-533/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Volkswagen AG v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167 to 171 — Right to deduct VAT — Right to refunds of VAT for taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund — Article 178(a) — Rules governing the exercise of the right to deduct VAT — Directive 2008/9/EC — Detailed rules for the refund of VAT — Limitation period — Principle of fiscal neutrality — VAT charged and paid several years after delivery of the goods in question — Refusal to allow the exercise of the right to a refund due to the expiry of the time limit which should have started to run from the date of supply of the goods)

11

2018/C 166/14

Case C-537/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Garlsson Real Estate SA, in liquidation, Stefano Ricucci, Magiste International SA v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/6/EC — Market manipulation — Penalties — National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Criminal nature of the administrative penalties — Existence of the same offence — Article 52(1) — Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle — Conditions)

12

2018/C 166/15

Case C-551/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — J. Klein Schiphorst v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 7, 63 and 64 — Unemployment benefits — Unemployed person going to another Member State — Retention of entitlement to benefits — Duration)

12

2018/C 166/16

Case C-557/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Astellas Pharma GmbH v Helm AG, Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus (Fimea) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/83/EC — Medicinal products for human use — Articles 28 and 29 — Decentralised procedure for marketing authorisation for a medicinal product — Article 10 — Generic medicinal product — Data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product — Power of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned to determine the point in time from which the exclusivity period starts to run — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States concerned to review the determination of the point in time from which the exclusivity period starts to run — Effective judicial protection — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47)

13

2018/C 166/17

Case C-568/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürtingen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Faiz Rasool (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Payment services — Directive 2007/64/EC — Article 3(e) and (o) — Article 4(3) — Annex — Point 2 — Scope — Operation of multifunctional terminals enabling cash withdrawals in gaming arcades — Consistency of the practice of the national authorities in bringing prosecutions — Confiscation of sums obtained by means of an unlawful activity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 17)

14

2018/C 166/18

Case C-575/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Notaries — Nationality requirement — Article 51 TFEU — Connection with the exercise of official authority)

15

2018/C 166/19

Joined Cases C-596/16 and C-597/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Enzo Di Puma v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (C-596/16), Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) v Antonio Zecca (C-597/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/6/EC — Insider dealing — Penalties — National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts — Res judicata attached to a final criminal judgment relating to administrative proceedings — Final criminal judgment ordering acquittal in respect of insider dealing — Effectiveness of the penalties — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Criminal nature of the administrative sanction — Existence of the same offence — Article 52(1) — Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle — Conditions)

15

2018/C 166/20

Case C-104/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — SC Cali Esprou SRL v Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Recovery and recycling of waste — National environmental fund contribution — National marketing of packaged products and their packaging, without alteration — Polluter-pays principle — Status of polluter)

16

2018/C 166/21

Joined Cases C-133/17 and C-134/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Dănuţ Podilă and Others v Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători CFR Călători SA București (C-133/17), Costel Nicușor Mucea v SMDA Mureş Insolvency SRL, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of SC Industria Sârmei SA Campia Turzii (C-134/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and health of workers at work — Classification of work places as places characterised by particular or special conditions — Assessment of the risks to safety and health at work — Employer’s obligations)

17

2018/C 166/22

Case C-125/17: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italy) — Luigi Bisignani v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Free movement of capital — Articles 64 and 65 TFEU — Directive 2011/16/EU — Cooperation in the field of taxation — Transfer of capital to the Vatican City State — Obligation to declare a transfer of funds sent or received from abroad — Repeal)

17

2018/C 166/23

Case C-58/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de Paix du canton de Visé (Belgium) lodged on 30 January 2018 — Michel Schyns v Belfius Banque SA

18

2018/C 166/24

Case C-63/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 1 February 2018 — Vitali SpA v Autostrade per l’Italia SpA

19

2018/C 166/25

Case C-101/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Idi Srl v Arcadis — Agenzia Regionale Campana Difesa Suolo

19

2018/C 166/26

Case C-133/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 20 February 2018 — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

20

2018/C 166/27

Case C-138/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 22 February 2018 — Skatteministeriet v Estron A/S

21

2018/C 166/28

Case C-147/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Almería (Spain) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Banco Mare Nostrum S.A. v Ignacio Jesús Berenguel Nieto, Carmen Sonia Salinas López

21

2018/C 166/29

Case C-154/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Labour Court, (Ireland) made on 27 February 2018 — Tomás Horgan, Claire Keegan v Minister for Education & Skills, Minister for Finance, Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

22

2018/C 166/30

Case C-159/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 27 February 2018 — André Moens v Ryanair Ltd

23

2018/C 166/31

Case C-169/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 2 March 2018 — Atif Mahmood, Shabina Atif, Mohammed Ahsan, Noor Habib, Mohammed Haroon, Nik Bibi Haroon v Minister for Justice and Equality

24

2018/C 166/32

Case C-174/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 5 March 2018 — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v État belge

25

2018/C 166/33

Case C-190/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the justice de paix de Schaerbeek (Belgium) lodged on 13 March 2018 — Société nationale de chemins de fer belges (SNCB) v Gherasim Sorin Rusu

25

General Court

2018/C 166/34

Case T-80/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland v EMA (Medicinal products for human use — Validation of an application for designation as an orphan medicinal product — Significant benefit — EMA decision refusing to validate an application for designation as an orphan medicinal product — Article 3(1)(b) and Article 5(1), (2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000)

27

2018/C 166/35

Case T-581/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 –Popotas v Ombudsman (Civil Service — Officials — Call for an expression of interest — Secretary General of the office of the European Ombudsman — Opinion of the Advisory Committee — Failure to take that opinion into consideration — Infringement of the selection procedure — Manifest errors of assessment — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Liability)

27

2018/C 166/36

Case T-806/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Agricola J.M. v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (CLOS DE LA TORRE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CLOS DE LA TORRE — Earlier national word mark TORRES — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion)

28

2018/C 166/37

Case T-235/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Dometic Sweden v EUIPO (MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

29

2018/C 166/38

Case T-229/16: Order of the General Court of 19 March 2018 –Pio de Bragança v EUIPO — Ordem de São Miguel da Ala (QUIS UT DEUS) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark QUIS UT DEUS — Failure to apply for renewal of registration of the mark — Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration — No need to adjudicate)

29

2018/C 166/39

Case T-822/16: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2018 — KiK Textilien und Non-Food v EUIPO — FF Group Romania (_kix) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark _kix — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Articles 173(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure — Intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Response lodged out of time)

30

2018/C 166/40

Case T-130/17: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Action for annulment — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Commission decision amending the conditions for exemption from the EU requirements of the rules governing operation of the OPAL pipeline in regard to third-party access and tariff regulation — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

31

2018/C 166/41

Case T-134/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission (Interim proceedings — Access to documents — Documents relating to the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of a Commission decision on State aid implemented by Spain in favour of three professional football clubs — Rights of the defence — Refusal of access — Application for provisional measures — Lack of urgency)

32

2018/C 166/42

Case T-108/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — University of Koblenz-Landau v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

32

2018/C 166/43

Case T-110/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Grange Backup Power v Commission

33

2018/C 166/44

Case T-136/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Kuota International v EUIPO — Sintema Sport (K)

34

2018/C 166/45

Case T-137/18: Action brought on 2 March 2018 — Chrome Hearts v EUIPO — Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry (Representation of a cross)

35

2018/C 166/46

Case T-147/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others

36

2018/C 166/47

Case T-148/18: Action brought on 2 March 2018 — UE v Commission

37

2018/C 166/48

Case T-179/18: Action brought on 7 March 2018 — Scordis, Papapetrou & Co and Others v Council and Others

37

2018/C 166/49

Case T-183/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VL and Others/Parliament

38

2018/C 166/50

Case T-187/18: Action brought on 9 March 2018 — VP v Cedefop

39

2018/C 166/51

Case T-188/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — Papaconstantinou and Others v Council and Others

40

2018/C 166/52

Case T-189/18: Action brought on 15 March 2018 — Lipitalia 2000 and Assograssi v Commission

40

2018/C 166/53

Case T-193/18: Action brought on 19 March 2018 — Andreas Stihl v EUIPO — Giro Travel (Combination of colours grey and orange)

42

2018/C 166/54

Case T-194/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International v EUIPO — Wessanen Benelux (BonNatura)

42

2018/C 166/55

Case T-196/18: Action brought on 20 March 2018 — Vital Capital Investments and Others v Council and Others

43

2018/C 166/56

Case T-201/18: Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Diusa Rendering and Assograssi v Commission

44

2018/C 166/57

Case T-202/18: Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Bruel v Commission

45

2018/C 166/58

Case T-209/18: Action brought on 22 March 2018 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Motor vehicles)

46

2018/C 166/59

Case T-210/18: Action brought on 22 March 2018 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Cars)

46

2018/C 166/60

Case T-213/18: Action brought on 27 March 2018 — Brita v EUIPO (Shape of tap for preparing and dispensing beverages)

47

2018/C 166/61

Case T-222/18: Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL)

48

2018/C 166/62

Case T-684/17: Order of the General Court of 13 mars 2018 — Amorepacific v EUIPO — Primavera Life (p primera Pure Sprout Energy)

49

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/1

---

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

(2018/C 166/01)

Last publication

OJ C 161, 7.5.2018

Past publications

OJ C 152, 30.4.2018

OJ C 142, 23.4.2018

OJ C 134, 16.4.2018

OJ C 123, 9.4.2018

OJ C 112, 26.3.2018

OJ C 104, 19.3.2018

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Luca Menci

(Case C-524/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Failure to pay VAT due - Penalties - National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Criminal nature of the administrative penalty - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle - Conditions))

(2018/C 166/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Bergamo

Party in the main proceedings

Luca Menci

Intervener: Procura della Repubblica

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation in accordance with which criminal proceedings may be brought against a person for failing to pay value added tax due within the time limits stipulated by law, although that person has already been made subject, in relation to the same acts, to a final administrative penalty of criminal nature for the purposes of Article 50 of the Charter, on condition that that legislation






  — | pursues an objective of general interest which is such as to justify such a duplication of proceedings and penalties, namely combating value added tax offences, it being necessary for those proceedings and penalties to pursue additional objectives, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation in accordance with which criminal proceedings may be brought against a person for failing to pay value added tax due within the time limits stipulated by law, although that person has already been made subject, in relation to the same acts, to a final administrative penalty of criminal nature for the purposes of Article 50 of the Charter, on condition that that legislation

—

pursues an objective of general interest which is such as to justify such a duplication of proceedings and penalties, namely combating value added tax offences, it being necessary for those proceedings and penalties to pursue additional objectives,

| — | contains rules ensuring coordination which limits to what is strictly necessary the additional disadvantage which results, for the persons concerned, from a duplication of proceedings, and |
| --- | --- |

—

contains rules ensuring coordination which limits to what is strictly necessary the additional disadvantage which results, for the persons concerned, from a duplication of proceedings, and

| — | provides for rules making it possible to ensure that the severity of all of the penalties imposed is limited to what is strictly necessary in relation to the seriousness of the offence concerned. |
| --- | --- |

—

provides for rules making it possible to ensure that the severity of all of the penalties imposed is limited to what is strictly necessary in relation to the seriousness of the offence concerned.

| 2. | It is for the referring court to ensure, taking into account all of the circumstances in the main proceedings, that the actual disadvantage resulting for the person concerned from the application of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings and from the duplication of the proceedings and penalties that that legislation authorises is not excessive in relation to the seriousness of the offence committed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is for the referring court to ensure, taking into account all of the circumstances in the main proceedings, that the actual disadvantage resulting for the person concerned from the application of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings and from the duplication of the proceedings and penalties that that legislation authorises is not excessive in relation to the seriousness of the offence committed.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — proceedings brought by Agnieška Anisimovienė and Others (C-688/15) and ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ VĮ (C-109/16)

(Joined Cases C-688/15 and C-109/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes - Directive 94/19/EC - Article 1(1) - Deposits - Temporary situations deriving from normal banking transactions - Directive 97/9/EC - Second subparagraph of Article 2(2) - Money owed to or belonging to an investor and held on his behalf by an investment firm in connection with investment business - Credit institution which issues transferable securities - Funds transferred by individuals to that institution in respect of subscription to future transferable securities - Application of Directive 2004/39/EC - Insolvency of that institution before the transferable securities in question are issued - Public undertaking entrusted with the deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes - Ability to rely on Directives 94/19/EC and 97/9/EC against that undertaking))

(2018/C 166/03)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Agnieška Anisimovienė and Others

Other parties: bankas ‘Snoras’ AB, in liquidation, ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ VĮ, bankas ‘Finasta’ AB (C-688/15)

‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ VĮ

Other parties: Alvydas Raišelis, bankas ‘Snoras’ AB, in liquidation (C-109/16)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes, on the one hand, and Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, on the other, must be interpreted as meaning that claims relating to funds which were debited from accounts that individuals held with a credit institution and credited to accounts opened in that institution’s name, in respect of subscription to future transferable securities of which that institution was to be the issuer, in circumstances where owing to that institution’s insolvency those securities were ultimately not issued, fall within both the investor-compensation schemes provided for by Directive 97/9 and the deposit-guarantee schemes provided for by Directive 94/19. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes, on the one hand, and Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, on the other, must be interpreted as meaning that claims relating to funds which were debited from accounts that individuals held with a credit institution and credited to accounts opened in that institution’s name, in respect of subscription to future transferable securities of which that institution was to be the issuer, in circumstances where owing to that institution’s insolvency those securities were ultimately not issued, fall within both the investor-compensation schemes provided for by Directive 97/9 and the deposit-guarantee schemes provided for by Directive 94/19.

| 2. | Article 2(3) of Directive 97/9 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where claims fall within both the deposit-guarantee schemes provided for by Directive 94/19 and the investor-compensation schemes provided for by Directive 97/9, and the national legislature has not directed such claims to a scheme under one or other of those directives, the court dealing with the case may not decide itself, on the basis of that provision, which scheme the holders of those claims may benefit from. On the contrary, in such a situation it falls to the holders of the claims to choose to be compensated by one or other of the schemes laid down in national law to implement those two directives. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(3) of Directive 97/9 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where claims fall within both the deposit-guarantee schemes provided for by Directive 94/19 and the investor-compensation schemes provided for by Directive 97/9, and the national legislature has not directed such claims to a scheme under one or other of those directives, the court dealing with the case may not decide itself, on the basis of that provision, which scheme the holders of those claims may benefit from. On the contrary, in such a situation it falls to the holders of the claims to choose to be compensated by one or other of the schemes laid down in national law to implement those two directives.

| 3. | Article 1(1) of Directive 94/19, as amended by Directive 2009/14, and Article 1(4) and the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Directive 97/9, must be interpreted as being capable of being relied upon by individuals before the national courts in support of claims for compensation against a public undertaking entrusted, in a Member State, with the deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 1(1) of Directive 94/19, as amended by Directive 2009/14, and Article 1(4) and the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Directive 97/9, must be interpreted as being capable of being relied upon by individuals before the national courts in support of claims for compensation against a public undertaking entrusted, in a Member State, with the deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-187/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC - Public service contracts - State printing office - Production of identity documents and other official documents - Award of contracts to an undertaking governed by private law without a procurement procedure first being conducted - Special security measures - Protection of the essential interests of the Member States))

(2018/C 166/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: M. Fruhmann, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by having awarded, without an EU-wide call for tenders, service contracts for the production of chip passports, emergency passports, residence permits, identity cards, credit card-sized driving licences and credit card-sized vehicle registration certificates directly to Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH and by maintaining national provisions which require contracting authorities to award those service contracts directly to that company, without an EU-wide call for tenders, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) and Article 8 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, read in conjunction with Articles 11 to 37 of that directive, and Article 14 and Article 20 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read in conjunction with Articles 23 to 55 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by having awarded, without an EU-wide call for tenders, service contracts for the production of chip passports, emergency passports, residence permits, identity cards, credit card-sized driving licences and credit card-sized vehicle registration certificates directly to Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH and by maintaining national provisions which require contracting authorities to award those service contracts directly to that company, without an EU-wide call for tenders, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) and Article 8 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, read in conjunction with Articles 11 to 37 of that directive, and Article 14 and Article 20 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read in conjunction with Articles 23 to 55 of that directive;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs of the European Commission, and the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs of the European Commission, and the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2018 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA v European Commission

(Case C-244/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Plant protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 - Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution - Inclusion of active substance metalaxyl in that list - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures - Individually concerned person))

(2018/C 166/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, C. Vila Gisbert and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, abogadas)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-256/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Anti-dumping - Validity of a regulation seeking to implement a judgment of the Court declaring previous regulations invalid - Obligation to implement - Legal basis - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 14 - Setting of the criteria relating to the collection of anti-dumping duties by Member States - Direction suspending the repayment of anti-dumping duties by national customs authorities - Resumption of the proceeding that preceded the regulations declared invalid - Article 10 - Non-retroactivity - Community Customs Code - Article 221 - Time-bar - Article 236 - Repayment of duties not owed))

(2018/C 166/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deichmann SE

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 of 17 February 2016 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Marc Jacob v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (C-327/16), Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics v Marc Lassus (C-421/16)

(Joined Cases C-327/16 and C-421/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Directive 90/434/EEC - Article 8 - Exchange of securities - Capital gains relating to that transaction - Deferred taxation - Capital losses upon the subsequent transfer of securities received - Tax competence of the State of residence - Difference in treatment - Justification - Preservation of the allocation of fiscal competence between Member States))

(2018/C 166/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marc Jacob (C-327/16), Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (C–421/16)

Defendants: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (C-327/16), Marc Lassus (C-421/16)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 8 of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, as adjusted by Decision 95/1/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the Council of the European Union of 1 January 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the capital gain resulting from an exchange of securities falling within the scope of that directive is established when the transaction occurs, but is taxed in the year in which the event putting an end to the deferred taxation occurs: in this case, the transfer of the securities received in exchange. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 8 of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, as adjusted by Decision 95/1/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the Council of the European Union of 1 January 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the capital gain resulting from an exchange of securities falling within the scope of that directive is established when the transaction occurs, but is taxed in the year in which the event putting an end to the deferred taxation occurs: in this case, the transfer of the securities received in exchange.

| 2. | Article 8 of the Directive 90/434, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, as adjusted by Decision 95/1, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State that provides for the taxation of the capital gain relating to an exchange of securities, in a case where taxation of the gain has been deferred, upon a subsequent transfer of the securities received in exchange, even though that transfer does not fall within the fiscal competence of that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 8 of the Directive 90/434, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, as adjusted by Decision 95/1, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State that provides for the taxation of the capital gain relating to an exchange of securities, in a case where taxation of the gain has been deferred, upon a subsequent transfer of the securities received in exchange, even though that transfer does not fall within the fiscal competence of that Member State.

| 3. | Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which, in a situation where the subsequent transfer of securities received in exchange does not fall within the fiscal competence of that Member State, provides for taxation of the capital gain that is subject to tax deferral upon that transfer without taking into account any capital loss occurring at that time, whereas account is taken of such a capital loss when the taxpayer holding the securities is resident for tax purposes in that Member State on the date of the transfer. It is for the Member States, in compliance with EU law and, in the present case, the freedom of establishment in particular, to provide detailed rules for offsetting and calculating that capital loss. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which, in a situation where the subsequent transfer of securities received in exchange does not fall within the fiscal competence of that Member State, provides for taxation of the capital gain that is subject to tax deferral upon that transfer without taking into account any capital loss occurring at that time, whereas account is taken of such a capital loss when the taxpayer holding the securities is resident for tax purposes in that Member State on the date of the transfer. It is for the Member States, in compliance with EU law and, in the present case, the freedom of establishment in particular, to provide detailed rules for offsetting and calculating that capital loss.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Council of State, France) — Christian Picart v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

(Case C-355/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Direct taxation - Transfer of the place of residence from a Member State to Switzerland - Taxation of unrealised gains on significant shareholdings in a number of companies established in the Member State of origin at the time of such transfer - Scope of the Agreement))

(2018/C 166/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Council of State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Picart

Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Where a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not come within the scope ratione personae of the notion of ‘self-employed persons’, within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, the terms of that agreement must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a State party to that agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, when a natural person transfers his residence from that State to another State party to that agreement, while maintaining his economic activity in the first of those two States, without undertaking every day, or at least once a week, a journey from the place of his economic activity to that of his residence, provides for the immediate taxation of the unrealised capital gains on significant shareholdings held by that person in companies governed by the laws of the first State at the time of the transfer of residence and which allows deferred recovery of the tax due only if suitable guarantees to ensure recovery of the tax are provided, whereas a person who also holds such shareholdings, but who continues to reside in the territory of the first of those States, need pay tax only at the time of transfer of those shareholdings.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.09.2016.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2018 — European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission

(Case C-384/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Plant protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 - Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution - Inclusion of active substance ‘copper compounds’ in that list - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures - Individually concerned person))

(2018/C 166/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Copper Task Force (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, C. Vila Gisbert, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, abogadas, and by M. Miserendino, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders European Union Copper Task Force to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders European Union Copper Task Force to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) v José Blanco Marqués

(Case C-431/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 12 and 46a to 46c - Benefits of the same kind - Definition - Rule against overlapping - Definition - Conditions - National rule providing for a supplement to the total permanent incapacity pension for workers of at least 55 years of age - Suspension of the supplement in the event of employment or receipt of a retirement pension))

(2018/C 166/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

Parties to the main proceedings

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

Defendant: José Blanco Marqués

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | A national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the supplement to a total permanent incapacity pension is suspended during the period in which the beneficiary of that pension receives a retirement pension in another Member State or in Switzerland, constitutes a provision on reduction of benefit for the purposes of Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the supplement to a total permanent incapacity pension is suspended during the period in which the beneficiary of that pension receives a retirement pension in another Member State or in Switzerland, constitutes a provision on reduction of benefit for the purposes of Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008.

| 2. | Article 46a(3)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘legislation of the first Member State’ in that article is to be interpreted as including the interpretation of a provision of national law made by a supreme national court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 46a(3)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘legislation of the first Member State’ in that article is to be interpreted as including the interpretation of a provision of national law made by a supreme national court.

| 3. | A supplement to a total permanent incapacity pension granted to a worker under the law of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, and a retirement pension acquired by that same worker in Switzerland must be regarded as being of the same kind within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008. |
| --- | --- |

3.

A supplement to a total permanent incapacity pension granted to a worker under the law of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, and a retirement pension acquired by that same worker in Switzerland must be regarded as being of the same kind within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008.

| 4. | Article 46b(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a national rule to prevent overlapping, such as that in Article 6 of Decreto 1646/1972 para la aplicación de la ley 24/1972, de 21 de junio, en materia de prestaciones del Régimen General de la Seguridad Social (Decree 1646/1972 on the Implementation of Law 24/1972 of 21 June 1972 concerning general social security system benefits), of 23 June 1972, is not applicable to a benefit calculated in accordance with Article 46(1)(a)(i) of that regulation when that benefit is not referred to in Annex IV, part D, to that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 46b(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a national rule to prevent overlapping, such as that in Article 6 of Decreto 1646/1972 para la aplicación de la ley 24/1972, de 21 de junio, en materia de prestaciones del Régimen General de la Seguridad Social (Decree 1646/1972 on the Implementation of Law 24/1972 of 21 June 1972 concerning general social security system benefits), of 23 June 1972, is not applicable to a benefit calculated in accordance with Article 46(1)(a)(i) of that regulation when that benefit is not referred to in Annex IV, part D, to that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited, Maura Sheehy v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-470/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Right of members of the public concerned to a review procedure - Premature challenge - Concepts of a not prohibitively expensive procedure and of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of the directive - Applicability of the Aarhus Convention))

(2018/C 166/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited, Maura Sheehy

Defendants: An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Ireland, Attorney General

Notice party: EirGrid plc

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 11(4) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive applies to a procedure before a court of a Member State, such as that in the main proceedings, in which it is determined whether leave may be granted to bring a challenge in the course of a development consent process, a fortiori where that Member State has not determined at what stage a challenge may be brought. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 11(4) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive applies to a procedure before a court of a Member State, such as that in the main proceedings, in which it is determined whether leave may be granted to bring a challenge in the course of a development consent process, a fortiori where that Member State has not determined at what stage a challenge may be brought.

| 2. | Where an applicant raises both pleas alleging infringement of the rules on public participation in decision-making in environmental matters and pleas alleging infringement of other rules, the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive laid down in Article 11(4) of Directive 2011/92 applies only to the costs relating to the part of the challenge alleging infringement of the rules on public participation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Where an applicant raises both pleas alleging infringement of the rules on public participation in decision-making in environmental matters and pleas alleging infringement of other rules, the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive laid down in Article 11(4) of Directive 2011/92 applies only to the costs relating to the part of the challenge alleging infringement of the rules on public participation.

| 3. | Article 9(3) and (4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ensure effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU environmental law, the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive applies to the part of a challenge that would not be covered by that requirement, as it results, under Directive 2011/92, from the answer given in point 2 of the present operative part, in so far as the applicant seeks, by that challenge, to ensure that national environmental law is complied with. Those provisions do not have direct effect, but it is for the national court to give an interpretation of national procedural law which, to the fullest extent possible, is consistent with them. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 9(3) and (4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ensure effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU environmental law, the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive applies to the part of a challenge that would not be covered by that requirement, as it results, under Directive 2011/92, from the answer given in point 2 of the present operative part, in so far as the applicant seeks, by that challenge, to ensure that national environmental law is complied with. Those provisions do not have direct effect, but it is for the national court to give an interpretation of national procedural law which, to the fullest extent possible, is consistent with them.

| 4. | A Member State cannot derogate from the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive, laid down by Article 9(4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters and Article 11(4) of Directive 2011/92, where a challenge is deemed frivolous or vexatious, or where there is no link between the alleged breach of national environmental law and damage to the environment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

A Member State cannot derogate from the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive, laid down by Article 9(4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters and Article 11(4) of Directive 2011/92, where a challenge is deemed frivolous or vexatious, or where there is no link between the alleged breach of national environmental law and damage to the environment.

---

(1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Georg Stollwitzer v ÖBB Personenverkehr AG

(Case C-482/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 45 TFEU - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 21(1) - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2, 6 and 16 - Reference date for the purpose of advancement - Discriminatory legislation of a Member State which does not allow periods of activity completed before reaching the age of 18 to be taken into account for the purpose of determining remuneration - Abolition of provisions that are contrary to the principle of equal treatment))

(2018/C 166/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georg Stollwitzer

Defendant: ÖBB Personenverkehr AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Articles 2, 6 and 16 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to end discrimination on grounds of age arising as a result of the application of national law that took into account, for the purpose of the categorisation of the employees of an undertaking within pay scales, only periods of activity completed after the age of 18, retroactively abolishes that age limit in respect of all such workers and allows only experience acquired with other undertakings operating in the same economic sector to be taken into account.

---

(1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Volkswagen AG v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-533/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167 to 171 - Right to deduct VAT - Right to refunds of VAT for taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund - Article 178(a) - Rules governing the exercise of the right to deduct VAT - Directive 2008/9/EC - Detailed rules for the refund of VAT - Limitation period - Principle of fiscal neutrality - VAT charged and paid several years after delivery of the goods in question - Refusal to allow the exercise of the right to a refund due to the expiry of the time limit which should have started to run from the date of supply of the goods))

(2018/C 166/13)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Volkswagen AG

Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings in which the value added tax (VAT) was charged to the taxable person and paid by it several years after delivery of the goods in question, the benefit of the right to claim a refund of VAT is denied on the grounds that the limitation period provided for by that legislation for the exercise of that right began to run from the date of supply and expired before the application for a refund was submitted.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Garlsson Real Estate SA, in liquidation, Stefano Ricucci, Magiste International SA v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-537/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/6/EC - Market manipulation - Penalties - National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Criminal nature of the administrative penalties - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle - Conditions))

(2018/C 166/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Garlsson Real Estate SA, in liquidation, Stefano Ricucci, Magiste International SA

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

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which permits the possibility of bringing administrative proceedings against a person in respect of unlawful conduct consisting in market manipulation for which the same person has already been finally convicted, in so far as that conviction is, given the harm caused to the company by the offence committed, such as to punish that offence in an effective, proportionate and dissuasive manner. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which permits the possibility of bringing administrative proceedings against a person in respect of unlawful conduct consisting in market manipulation for which the same person has already been finally convicted, in so far as that conviction is, given the harm caused to the company by the offence committed, such as to punish that offence in an effective, proportionate and dissuasive manner.

| 2. | The ne bis in idem principle guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union confers on individuals a right which is directly applicable in the context of a dispute such as that at issue in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The ne bis in idem principle guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union confers on individuals a right which is directly applicable in the context of a dispute such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — J. Klein Schiphorst v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-551/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 7, 63 and 64 - Unemployment benefits - Unemployed person going to another Member State - Retention of entitlement to benefits - Duration))

(2018/C 166/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: J. Klein Schiphorst

Respondent: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 64(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that requires the competent institution to refuse, as a matter of principle, any request to extend the unemployment benefit export period beyond three months, provided the institution does not consider that refusing that request would lead to an unreasonable result.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Astellas Pharma GmbH v Helm AG, Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus (Fimea)

(Case C-557/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/83/EC - Medicinal products for human use - Articles 28 and 29 - Decentralised procedure for marketing authorisation for a medicinal product - Article 10 - Generic medicinal product - Data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product - Power of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned to determine the point in time from which the exclusivity period starts to run - Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States concerned to review the determination of the point in time from which the exclusivity period starts to run - Effective judicial protection - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47))

(2018/C 166/16)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Astellas Pharma GmbH

Defendants: Helm AG, Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus (Fimea)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 28 and Article 29(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a decentralised marketing-authorisation procedure for a generic medicinal product, the competent authority of a Member State concerned by that procedure cannot itself determine the point in time from which the data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product starts to run when adopting, under Article 28(5) of that directive, its decision on the placing on the market of that generic medicinal product in that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 28 and Article 29(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a decentralised marketing-authorisation procedure for a generic medicinal product, the competent authority of a Member State concerned by that procedure cannot itself determine the point in time from which the data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product starts to run when adopting, under Article 28(5) of that directive, its decision on the placing on the market of that generic medicinal product in that Member State.

| 2) | Article 10 of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2012/26, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State involved in a decentralised procedure for marketing authorisations, hearing an action brought by the holder of the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product against the marketing-authorisation decision for a generic medicinal product in that Member State taken by its competent authority, has jurisdiction to review the determination of the point in time from which the data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product starts to run. By contrast, that court does not have jurisdiction to review whether the initial marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product granted in another Member State was granted in accordance with that directive. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 10 of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2012/26, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State involved in a decentralised procedure for marketing authorisations, hearing an action brought by the holder of the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product against the marketing-authorisation decision for a generic medicinal product in that Member State taken by its competent authority, has jurisdiction to review the determination of the point in time from which the data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product starts to run. By contrast, that court does not have jurisdiction to review whether the initial marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product granted in another Member State was granted in accordance with that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürtingen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Faiz Rasool

(Case C-568/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Payment services - Directive 2007/64/EC - Article 3(e) and (o) - Article 4(3) - Annex - Point 2 - Scope - Operation of multifunctional terminals enabling cash withdrawals in gaming arcades - Consistency of the practice of the national authorities in bringing prosecutions - Confiscation of sums obtained by means of an unlawful activity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 17))

(2018/C 166/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürtingen

Party to the main proceedings

Faiz Rasool

Other party to the proceedings: Rasool Entertainment GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, read in conjunction with point 2 of the annex to the directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a cash withdrawal service offered by a gaming arcade operator to his customers by means of multifunctional terminals in those arcades is not a ‘payment service’ within the meaning of that directive, where the operator does not carry out any operation on those customers’ payment accounts and the activities he performs on that occasion are confined to making the terminals available and loading them with cash.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-575/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 51 TFEU - Connection with the exercise of official authority))

(2018/C 166/18)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Vláčil and A. Kasalická, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

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

2.

Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Enzo Di Puma v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (C-596/16), Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) v Antonio Zecca (C-597/16)

(Joined Cases C-596/16 and C-597/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/6/EC - Insider dealing - Penalties - National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts - Res judicata attached to a final criminal judgment relating to administrative proceedings - Final criminal judgment ordering acquittal in respect of insider dealing - Effectiveness of the penalties - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Criminal nature of the administrative sanction - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle - Conditions))

(2018/C 166/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Enzo Di Puma (C-596/16), Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (C-597/16)

Defendants: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (C-596/16), Antonio Zecca (C-597/16)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1) of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), read in the light of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation in accordance with which proceedings for an administrative fine of a criminal nature may not be brought following a final criminal judgment of acquittal ruling that the acts capable of constituting a violation of the legislation relating to insider dealing, on the basis of which those proceedings had also been initiated, were not established.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — SC Cali Esprou SRL v Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-104/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Recovery and recycling of waste - National environmental fund contribution - National marketing of packaged products and their packaging, without alteration - ‘Polluter-pays’ principle - Status of polluter))

(2018/C 166/20)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Piteşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Cali Esprou SRL

Defendant: Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste and the ‘polluter-pays’ principle which it implements do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a contribution on an economic operator which does not make any alteration to the packaging which it places on the market, calculated on the basis of the difference in weight between, on the one hand, the quantity of packaging waste corresponding to the minimum targets for energy recovery and recovery by recycling and the quantity of packaging waste actually recovered or recycled.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Dănuţ Podilă and Others v Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători ‘CFR Călători’ SA București (C-133/17), Costel Nicușor Mucea v SMDA Mureş Insolvency SRL, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of SC Industria Sârmei SA Campia Turzii (C-134/17)

(Joined Cases C-133/17 and C-134/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 89/391/EEC - Safety and health of workers at work - Classification of work places as places characterised by particular or special conditions - Assessment of the risks to safety and health at work - Employer’s obligations))

(2018/C 166/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dănuţ Podilă, Vasile Oniţă, Dumitru Cornel Bara, Gheorghe Podilă, Alexandru Daniel Coneru, Mihai Călin Junc, Dănuţ Bungău, Francisc Chudi, Ioan Iancu, Ionel Negruţ, Dan Florin Roxin (C-133/17), Costel Nicușor Mucea (C-134/17)

Defendants: Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători ‘CFR Călători’ SA București (C-133/17), SMDA Mureş Insolvency SRL, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of SC Industria Sârmei SA Campia Turzii (C-134/17)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 114(3) and Articles 151 and 153 TFEU and Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work must be interpreted as not being applicable to national laws, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down strict deadlines and procedures not allowing the national courts to review or establish the classification of the activities of workers in various risk groups, on the basis of which retirement pensions are calculated for those workers.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/17

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italy) — Luigi Bisignani v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma

(Case C-125/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Free movement of capital - Articles 64 and 65 TFEU - Directive 2011/16/EU - Cooperation in the field of taxation - Transfer of capital to the Vatican City State - Obligation to declare a transfer of funds sent or received from abroad - Repeal))

(2018/C 166/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Luigi Bisignani

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma

Operative part of the order

Article 64(1) and Article 65(1)(a) TFEU must be interpreted to the effect that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which definitively repeals the offence of not declaring transfers of funds abroad.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de Paix du canton de Visé (Belgium) lodged on 30 January 2018 — Michel Schyns v Belfius Banque SA

(Case C-58/18)

(2018/C 166/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Justice de Paix du canton de Visé

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michel Schyns

Defendant: Belfius Banque SA

Questions referred

| 1. | (a) | Does Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, (1) in so far as it is intended to ensure that the consumer will be in a position to assess whether the proposed credit agreement is suited to his needs and to his financial situation, preclude the wording of the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Loi sur le crédit à la consommation (Law on consumer credit) (repealed and now replaced by Article VII.75 of the Code de droit économique (Code on Economic Law)), in so far as it provides that the creditor and the credit intermediary must find, within the framework of the credit agreements which they usually offer or in which they are usually involved, the type and the amount of credit most suitable, taking into account the consumer’s financial situation at the time the credit agreement is concluded and the purpose of the credit inasmuch as that provision establishes a general obligation on the creditor or the credit intermediary to find the most suitable credit for the consumer which is not included in the wording of the abovementioned directive? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Does Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, (1) in so far as it is intended to ensure that the consumer will be in a position to assess whether the proposed credit agreement is suited to his needs and to his financial situation, preclude the wording of the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Loi sur le crédit à la consommation (Law on consumer credit) (repealed and now replaced by Article VII.75 of the Code de droit économique (Code on Economic Law)), in so far as it provides that the creditor and the credit intermediary must find, within the framework of the credit agreements which they usually offer or in which they are usually involved, the type and the amount of credit most suitable, taking into account the consumer’s financial situation at the time the credit agreement is concluded and the purpose of the credit inasmuch as that provision establishes a general obligation on the creditor or the credit intermediary to find the most suitable credit for the consumer which is not included in the wording of the abovementioned directive?

| (b) | Does Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, in so far as it is intended to ensure that the consumer will be in a position to assess whether the proposed credit agreement is suited to his needs and to his financial situation, preclude the wording of the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Loi sur le crédit à la consommation (repealed and now replaced by Art. Vll.77(2) subparagraph 1 of the Code de droit économique), in so far as the creditor may conclude a credit agreement only if, having regard to the information which is or should have been available to him, particularly on the basis of the consultation required under Article 9 of the Loi du 10 août 2001 relative à la Centrale des crédits aux particuliers (Law of 10 August 2001 on the Central Office for Credits to Individuals) and on the basis of the information referred to in Article 10, he must reasonably take the view that the consumer will be able to fulfil the obligations arising from the agreement inasmuch as it follows that the creditor must himself decide on the expediency of the possible conclusion of a credit agreement on behalf of the consumer? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, in so far as it is intended to ensure that the consumer will be in a position to assess whether the proposed credit agreement is suited to his needs and to his financial situation, preclude the wording of the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Loi sur le crédit à la consommation (repealed and now replaced by Art. Vll.77(2) subparagraph 1 of the Code de droit économique), in so far as the creditor may conclude a credit agreement only if, having regard to the information which is or should have been available to him, particularly on the basis of the consultation required under Article 9 of the Loi du 10 août 2001 relative à la Centrale des crédits aux particuliers (Law of 10 August 2001 on the Central Office for Credits to Individuals) and on the basis of the information referred to in Article 10, he must reasonably take the view that the consumer will be able to fulfil the obligations arising from the agreement inasmuch as it follows that the creditor must himself decide on the expediency of the possible conclusion of a credit agreement on behalf of the consumer?

| 2. | In the event of a negative reply to the first question, must Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers be interpreted as always requiring the creditor and the credit intermediary to assess, on behalf of a consumer, the expediency of the possible conclusion of a credit agreement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event of a negative reply to the first question, must Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers be interpreted as always requiring the creditor and the credit intermediary to assess, on behalf of a consumer, the expediency of the possible conclusion of a credit agreement?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 1 February 2018 — Vitali SpA v Autostrade per l’Italia SpA

(Case C-63/18)

(2018/C 166/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vitali SpA

Defendant: Autostrade per l’Italia SpA

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services referred to in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 71 of Directive 2014/24 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (1) which does not contemplate quantitative limitations on subcontracting, and the EU-law principle of proportionality preclude the application of national legislation in matters relating to public procurement, such as the Italian rule set out in the third sentence of Article 105(2) of Legislative Decree No 50 of 18 April 2016, pursuant to which subcontracting cannot exceed 30 % of the total amount of the contract for works, services or supplies?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Idi Srl v Arcadis — Agenzia Regionale Campana Difesa Suolo

(Case C-101/18)

(2018/C 166/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Idi Srl

Respondent: Arcadis — Agenzia Regionale Campana Difesa Suolo

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it compatible with Article 45(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 (1) to regard a debtor that has merely made a request to the competent judicial body to enter into an arrangement with creditors as being ‘the subject of proceedings’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with Article 45(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 (1) to regard a debtor that has merely made a request to the competent judicial body to enter into an arrangement with creditors as being ‘the subject of proceedings’?

| 2. | Is it compatible with the abovementioned provision to regard a debtor’s declaration that it is in a state of insolvency and wishes to submit a preliminary request (the features of which are described above) to enter into an arrangement with creditors as grounds for excluding that debtor from a public tendering procedure, thereby interpreting broadly the term ‘the subject of proceedings’ used in the provisions of Community law (Article 45 of the directive) and of national law (Article 38 of Legislative Decree No 163/2006), cited above? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it compatible with the abovementioned provision to regard a debtor’s declaration that it is in a state of insolvency and wishes to submit a preliminary request (the features of which are described above) to enter into an arrangement with creditors as grounds for excluding that debtor from a public tendering procedure, thereby interpreting broadly the term ‘the subject of proceedings’ used in the provisions of Community law (Article 45 of the directive) and of national law (Article 38 of Legislative Decree No 163/2006), cited above?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 20 February 2018 — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Case C-133/18)

(2018/C 166/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Question referred

Must Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it creates a limitation rule which has the effect that a taxable person of a Member State which applies for a refund of value added tax from a Member State in which it is not established is not able to regularise its refund application before a tax court if it has not complied with the time limit for replying to a request for information made by the administration in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of that article, or, on the contrary, as meaning that that taxable person may, in the context of the right of appeal laid down in Article 23 of the directive, and having regard to the principles of neutrality and proportionality of VAT, regularise its application before the tax court?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 23).

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 22 February 2018 — Skatteministeriet v Estron A/S

(Case C-138/18)

(2018/C 166/27)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: Estron A/S

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Note 2(a) to Chapter 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, (1) read in conjunction with General Rules Nos 1 and 6 for the interpretation of the CN, to be interpreted as meaning that ‘parts and accessories, which are goods included in any of the headings of this chapter or of Chapter 84, 85 or 91’, refers to goods in the four-digit headings in those chapters, or is the Note to be interpreted as also referring to the related subheading notes (the first six digits) in Chapters 84, 85, 90 and 91? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Note 2(a) to Chapter 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, (1) read in conjunction with General Rules Nos 1 and 6 for the interpretation of the CN, to be interpreted as meaning that ‘parts and accessories, which are goods included in any of the headings of this chapter or of Chapter 84, 85 or 91’, refers to goods in the four-digit headings in those chapters, or is the Note to be interpreted as also referring to the related subheading notes (the first six digits) in Chapters 84, 85, 90 and 91?

| 2. | Should connectors such as those at issue in the present case be classified under CN subheading 8544 42 90, CN subheading 9021 40 00 or CN subheading 9021 90 10? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should connectors such as those at issue in the present case be classified under CN subheading 8544 42 90, CN subheading 9021 40 00 or CN subheading 9021 90 10?

| 3. | Should Note 1(m) to section XVI be interpreted as meaning that where a good is included in Chapter 90, it cannot also be included in Chapters 84 and 85? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Should Note 1(m) to section XVI be interpreted as meaning that where a good is included in Chapter 90, it cannot also be included in Chapters 84 and 85?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Almería (Spain) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Banco Mare Nostrum S.A. v Ignacio Jesús Berenguel Nieto, Carmen Sonia Salinas López

(Case C-147/18)

(2018/C 166/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Almería

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Banco Mare Nostrum S.A.

Respondents: Ignacio Jesús Berenguel Nieto, Carmen Sonia Salinas López

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a declaration, obtained by judgment, that an unfair term is non-binding, within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) preclude the application of all the effects acknowledged by the judgment [of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 December 2016, Gutiérrez Naranjo and Others, C-154/15, C-307/15 and C-308/15]? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a declaration, obtained by judgment, that an unfair term is non-binding, within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) preclude the application of all the effects acknowledged by the judgment [of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 December 2016, Gutiérrez Naranjo and Others, C-154/15, C-307/15 and C-308/15]?

| 2. | Is the application of the restitutory effects of a term held to be unfair within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts affected, limited or precluded by the principle that the subject-matter of an action is defined by the parties, the principle that the parties determine the facts and evidence forming the basis for a decision, the principle of substantive res judicata, and the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in pejus? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the application of the restitutory effects of a term held to be unfair within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts affected, limited or precluded by the principle that the subject-matter of an action is defined by the parties, the principle that the parties determine the facts and evidence forming the basis for a decision, the principle of substantive res judicata, and the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in pejus?

| 3. | Are the functions of a court of second instance limited by the fact that the judgment at first instance granted limited effect to a declaration of unfairness, and the judgment has not been appealed against by the consumer but only by the seller or supplier, who included the term, in order to dispute the unfairness of the term or any effects arising from the declaration that the term was unfair? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the functions of a court of second instance limited by the fact that the judgment at first instance granted limited effect to a declaration of unfairness, and the judgment has not been appealed against by the consumer but only by the seller or supplier, who included the term, in order to dispute the unfairness of the term or any effects arising from the declaration that the term was unfair?

| 4. | Do the functions of a court of second instance extend to the possibility of applying all the consequences provided for in Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 and the case-law interpreting it, even where the consumer did not seek, in his initial claim in the application, all the effects deriving from a declaration that the term in question is unfair? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do the functions of a court of second instance extend to the possibility of applying all the consequences provided for in Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 and the case-law interpreting it, even where the consumer did not seek, in his initial claim in the application, all the effects deriving from a declaration that the term in question is unfair?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p 29.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Labour Court, (Ireland) made on 27 February 2018 — Tomás Horgan, Claire Keegan v Minister for Education & Skills, Minister for Finance, Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

(Case C-154/18)

(2018/C 166/29)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

The Labour Court, Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tomás Horgan, Claire Keegan

Defendants: Minister for Education & Skills, Minister for Finance, Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

Questions referred

| 1. | Does it constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of age, within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, for a Member State, in its capacity as an employer, to introduce lower salary scales for new entrants to the profession of national teacher while leaving unaltered the pay of those teachers already in employment, where:






  a) | the revised salary scales and the existing salary scales apply to all teachers in the respective categories regardless of their age; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Does it constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of age, within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, for a Member State, in its capacity as an employer, to introduce lower salary scales for new entrants to the profession of national teacher while leaving unaltered the pay of those teachers already in employment, where:

a)

the revised salary scales and the existing salary scales apply to all teachers in the respective categories regardless of their age;

| b) | at the point at which they were recruited and placed on the respective scales there was no difference in the age profile of those in the higher paid group and those in the lower paid group; |
| --- | --- |

b)

at the point at which they were recruited and placed on the respective scales there was no difference in the age profile of those in the higher paid group and those in the lower paid group;

| c) | the introduction of the revised scales has resulted in a substantial difference in pay as between two groups of teachers who are engaged in work of equal value; |
| --- | --- |

c)

the introduction of the revised scales has resulted in a substantial difference in pay as between two groups of teachers who are engaged in work of equal value;

| d) | the average age of those placed on the reduced salary scales is lower than that of the average age of those on the original salary scales; |
| --- | --- |

d)

the average age of those placed on the reduced salary scales is lower than that of the average age of those on the original salary scales;

| e) | at the point at which the lower salary scales were introduced, the State’s statistics showed that 70 % of teachers appointed were 25 years of age or under and it was acknowledged that this was typical of the age profile of entrants to national teaching in any given year; and |
| --- | --- |

e)

at the point at which the lower salary scales were introduced, the State’s statistics showed that 70 % of teachers appointed were 25 years of age or under and it was acknowledged that this was typical of the age profile of entrants to national teaching in any given year; and

| f) | national teachers who entered the profession in 2011 and later suffer a clear financial disadvantage in comparison to their teaching colleagues appointed prior to 2011. |
| --- | --- |

f)

national teachers who entered the profession in 2011 and later suffer a clear financial disadvantage in comparison to their teaching colleagues appointed prior to 2011.

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, can the introduction of the lower salary scales be objectively justified by a requirement to achieve a medium- to long-term structural reduction in the cost of the public service, having regard to budgetary constraints facing the State and/or the importance of maintaining good industrial relations with existing civil and public servants? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, can the introduction of the lower salary scales be objectively justified by a requirement to achieve a medium- to long-term structural reduction in the cost of the public service, having regard to budgetary constraints facing the State and/or the importance of maintaining good industrial relations with existing civil and public servants?

| 3. | Would the answer to question 2 be different if the State could have achieved equivalent savings by reducing the pay of all teachers by a significantly lesser amount than the reduction applied only to newly recruited teachers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Would the answer to question 2 be different if the State could have achieved equivalent savings by reducing the pay of all teachers by a significantly lesser amount than the reduction applied only to newly recruited teachers?

| 4. | Would the answer to questions 2 or 3 be different if the decision not to reduce the salary scales applicable to teachers already in employment was taken in compliance with a collective agreement between the Government as an employer and the trade unions representing public service workers whereby the Government committed not to further reduce the pay of existing public servants who had already been subject to pay cuts and the industrial relations consequences that would flow from a failure to comply with that agreement, having regard to the fact that the new pay scale introduced in 2011 did not form part of such a collective agreement? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Would the answer to questions 2 or 3 be different if the decision not to reduce the salary scales applicable to teachers already in employment was taken in compliance with a collective agreement between the Government as an employer and the trade unions representing public service workers whereby the Government committed not to further reduce the pay of existing public servants who had already been subject to pay cuts and the industrial relations consequences that would flow from a failure to comply with that agreement, having regard to the fact that the new pay scale introduced in 2011 did not form part of such a collective agreement?

---

(1)  OJ 2000, L 303, p. 16.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 27 February 2018 — André Moens v Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-159/18)

(2018/C 166/30)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: André Moens

Defendant: Ryanair Ltd

Questions referred

[The] request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) [is] worded as follows:

| 1. | Does the circumstance at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, fall to be classified under the notion of an ‘event’ within the meaning of paragraph 22 of the judgment of 22 December 2008, Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, EU:C:2008:771), or under that of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of recital 14 of that regulation, as interpreted by the judgment of 31 January 2013, McDonagh (C-12/11, EU:C:2013:43), or do those two concepts overlap? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the circumstance at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, fall to be classified under the notion of an ‘event’ within the meaning of paragraph 22 of the judgment of 22 December 2008, Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, EU:C:2008:771), or under that of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of recital 14 of that regulation, as interpreted by the judgment of 31 January 2013, McDonagh (C-12/11, EU:C:2013:43), or do those two concepts overlap?

| 2. | Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, be interpreted as meaning that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, must be found to be an event inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of an air carrier and, accordingly, cannot be classified as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ capable of exonerating the air carrier from its obligation to compensate passengers in the case where a flight operated by that carrier is subjected to a significant delay? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, be interpreted as meaning that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, must be found to be an event inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of an air carrier and, accordingly, cannot be classified as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ capable of exonerating the air carrier from its obligation to compensate passengers in the case where a flight operated by that carrier is subjected to a significant delay?

| 3. | If an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, must be found to be an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, must it be inferred from this that, for the air carrier, this is an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, must be found to be an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, must it be inferred from this that, for the air carrier, this is an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken?

---

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

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 2 March 2018 — Atif Mahmood, Shabina Atif, Mohammed Ahsan, Noor Habib, Mohammed Haroon, Nik Bibi Haroon v Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-169/18)

(2018/C 166/31)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Atif Mahmood, Shabina Atif, Mohammed Ahsan, Noor Habib, Mohammed Haroon, Nik Bibi Haroon

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Questions referred

| 1. | Subject to the potential justifications described in Questions 2, 3 and 4, is a Member State in breach of the requirement in Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1)‘the 2004 Directive’) to issue a visa as quickly as possible to the spouse and family Members of a Union citizen exercising free movement rights in the Member State in question or intending to exercise such rights where the delays in processing such an application exceed 12 months or more? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Subject to the potential justifications described in Questions 2, 3 and 4, is a Member State in breach of the requirement in Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1)‘the 2004 Directive’) to issue a visa as quickly as possible to the spouse and family Members of a Union citizen exercising free movement rights in the Member State in question or intending to exercise such rights where the delays in processing such an application exceed 12 months or more?

| 2. | Without prejudice to Question 1, are delays in processing or otherwise deciding on an application for a visa pursuant to Article 5(2) arising from the necessity to ensure in particular by way of background checks that the application is not fraudulent or an abuse of rights, including that the marriage amounts to a marriage of convenience, whether by virtue of Article 35 of the 2004 Directive or otherwise and thus not a breach of Article 5(2)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Without prejudice to Question 1, are delays in processing or otherwise deciding on an application for a visa pursuant to Article 5(2) arising from the necessity to ensure in particular by way of background checks that the application is not fraudulent or an abuse of rights, including that the marriage amounts to a marriage of convenience, whether by virtue of Article 35 of the 2004 Directive or otherwise and thus not a breach of Article 5(2)?

| 3. | Without prejudice to Question 1, are delays in processing or deciding on an application for a visa pursuant to Article 5(2) arising from the necessity to conduct extensive background and security checks on persons coming from certain third countries because of specific concerns relating to security in respect of travellers coming from those third countries, whether by virtue of Article 27 or Article 35 of the 2004 Directive or otherwise justifiable and thus not in breach of Article 5(2)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Without prejudice to Question 1, are delays in processing or deciding on an application for a visa pursuant to Article 5(2) arising from the necessity to conduct extensive background and security checks on persons coming from certain third countries because of specific concerns relating to security in respect of travellers coming from those third countries, whether by virtue of Article 27 or Article 35 of the 2004 Directive or otherwise justifiable and thus not in breach of Article 5(2)?

| 4. | Without prejudice to Question 1, are delays in processing or deciding on an application for a visa pursuant to Article 5(2) arising from a sudden and anticipated surge in such applications coming from certain third countries which are thought to present real security concerns justifiable and thus not in breach of Article 5(2)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Without prejudice to Question 1, are delays in processing or deciding on an application for a visa pursuant to Article 5(2) arising from a sudden and anticipated surge in such applications coming from certain third countries which are thought to present real security concerns justifiable and thus not in breach of Article 5(2)?

---

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

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 5 March 2018 — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v État belge

(Case C-174/18)

(2018/C 166/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz

Defendants: État belge

Question referred

Is it contrary to Article 39 [EC, now Article 45 TFEU] for the Belgian tax system, in Article 155 of the CIR/92 and regardless of whether or not Circular No Ci.RH.331/575.420 of 12 March 2008 is applied, to have the effect that the Luxembourg pensions of the applicant Mr Jacob, which are exempted from tax pursuant to Article 18 of the Convention concluded between Belgium and Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation, are taken into account for the purpose of calculating the tax payable in Belgium and used as the basis of assessment for the granting of tax advantages provided for under the CIR/92, even though they should not form part of that basis by reason of their total exemption as provided for in the Convention for the avoidance of double taxation, and that those advantages, such as the tax-free allowance, long-term savings, costs paid with service vouchers, costs incurred in saving energy in the home, costs incurred in protecting the home against theft or fire, and charitable donations made by the applicant Mr Jacob, are partly lost, reduced or granted to a lesser extent than if both applicants had income earned in Belgium, which, for its part, is taxable in Belgium and is not exempt and may thus absorb the tax advantages in their entirety?

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the justice de paix de Schaerbeek (Belgium) lodged on 13 March 2018 — Société nationale de chemins de fer belges (SNCB) v Gherasim Sorin Rusu

(Case C-190/18)

(2018/C 166/33)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Justice de paix de Schaerbeek

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société nationale de chemins de fer belges (SNCB)

Defendant: Gherasim Sorin Rusu

Question referred

Do Council Directive 93/13/EC on terms in consumer contracts (1) and Regulation No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (2) apply to relations between the SNCB and passengers caught without a valid ticket?

---

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

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14).

---

General Court

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland v EMA

(Case T-80/16) (1)

((Medicinal products for human use - Validation of an application for designation as an orphan medicinal product - Significant benefit - EMA decision refusing to validate an application for designation as an orphan medicinal product - Article 3(1)(b) and Article 5(1), (2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000))

(2018/C 166/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: D. Anderson QC, M. Birdling, barrister, G. Castle and S. Cowlishaw, solicitors)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo and M. Tovar Gomis, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Petersen and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the EMA decision of 15 December 2015 refusing to validate the application submitted by Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland for designation of Idursulfase-IT as an orphan medicinal product.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) dated 15 December 2015 refusing to validate the application submitted by Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd seeking the designation of Idursulfase-IT as an orphan medicinal product; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) dated 15 December 2015 refusing to validate the application submitted by Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd seeking the designation of Idursulfase-IT as an orphan medicinal product;

| 2. | Orders the EMA to bear its own costs, as well as those of Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the EMA to bear its own costs, as well as those of Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 –Popotas v Ombudsman

(Case T-581/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Call for an expression of interest - Secretary General of the office of the European Ombudsman - Opinion of the Advisory Committee - Failure to take that opinion into consideration - Infringement of the selection procedure - Manifest errors of assessment - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Liability))

(2018/C 166/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Costas Popotas (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Ombudsman (represented by: L. Papadias, P. Dyrberg and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, firstly, the annulment of the decision to appoint Ms G. to the post of Secretary General of the office of the Ombudsman, of the Ombudsman’s decision of 9 November 2015 rejecting the claims brought by the applicant against that decision and of the Ombudsman’s decision not to invite him to an interview and, secondly, compensation for the loss which the applicant has allegedly suffered following those decisions

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Costas Popotas and the European Ombudsman each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Costas Popotas and the European Ombudsman each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016 (action initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case number F-10/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Agricola J.M. v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (CLOS DE LA TORRE)

(Case T-806/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CLOS DE LA TORRE - Earlier national word mark TORRES - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion))

(2018/C 166/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Agricola J.M., SL (Girona, Spain) (represented by: J. Clos Creus, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 (Case R 2099//2015-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres and Agricola J.M.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Agricola J.M., SL to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Agricola J.M., SL to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Dometic Sweden v EUIPO (MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY)

(Case T-235/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 166/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dometic Sweden AB (Solna, Sweden) (represented by: R. Furneaux and E. Humphreys, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2017 (Case R 1832/2016-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dometic Sweden AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dometic Sweden AB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/29

---

Order of the General Court of 19 March 2018 –Pio de Bragança v EUIPO — Ordem de São Miguel da Ala (QUIS UT DEUS)

(Case T-229/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark QUIS UT DEUS - Failure to apply for renewal of registration of the mark - Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 166/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Duarte Pio de Bragança (Sintra, Portugal) (represented by: J. Sardinha, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ordem de São Miguel da Ala (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Motta Veiga, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2016 (Case R 621/2015-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Duarte Pio De Bragança and Ordem de São Miguel da Ala.

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. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/30

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2018 — KiK Textilien und Non-Food v EUIPO — FF Group Romania (_kix)

(Case T-822/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark _kix - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate - Articles 173(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure - Intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal - Response lodged out of time))

(2018/C 166/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany) (represented by: S. Körber and L. Pechan, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: FF Group Romania SRL (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: A. Cavescu, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2016 (Case R 2323/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between KiK Textilien und Non-Food and FF Group Romania.

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. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH.

| 3. | FF Group Romania shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

FF Group Romania shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/31

---

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission

(Case T-130/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Commission decision amending the conditions for exemption from the EU requirements of the rules governing operation of the OPAL pipeline in regard to third-party access and tariff regulation - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 166/40)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on the review of the conditions for exemption of the OPAL pipeline, granted under Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57), from the rules on third-party access and tariff regulation.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene.

| 3. | Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

| 4. | The Federal Republic of Germany shall bear its own costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Federal Republic of Germany shall bear its own costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

| 5. | Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, OPAL Gastransport GmbH & Co. KG and Gazprom Eksport LLC shall each bear their own respective costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, OPAL Gastransport GmbH & Co. KG and Gazprom Eksport LLC shall each bear their own respective costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/32

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-134/17 R)

((Interim proceedings - Access to documents - Documents relating to the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of a Commission decision on State aid implemented by Spain in favour of three professional football clubs - Rights of the defence - Refusal of access - Application for provisional measures - Lack of urgency))

(2018/C 166/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Stromsky, G. Luengo and P. Němečková, and subsequently by: J. Baquero Cruz, G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking an order that the Commission grant access to the documents in the file relating to State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) granted by Spain to Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD, in so far as they concern the applicant and fundamental to the proper defence of its interests.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/32

---

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — University of Koblenz-Landau v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

(Case T-108/18)

(2018/C 166/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: University of Koblenz-Landau (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: C. von der Lühe and I. Michel, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendants’ notice with the reference OF/2016/0720-EACEA UKOLD of 21 December 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendants’ notice with the reference OF/2016/0720-EACEA UKOLD of 21 December 2017;

| — | annul the defendants’ notice with the reference OF/2016/0720 of 7 February 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendants’ notice with the reference OF/2016/0720 of 7 February 2018;

| — | suspend the execution of the defendants’ notices with the reference OF/2016/0720 of 21 December 2017 and 7 February 2018 and the defendants’ Debit Note No 3241802552 of 13 February 2018 until the final conclusion of the proceedings for the annulment of the notices contested in this action; and |
| --- | --- |

—

suspend the execution of the defendants’ notices with the reference OF/2016/0720 of 21 December 2017 and 7 February 2018 and the defendants’ Debit Note No 3241802552 of 13 February 2018 until the final conclusion of the proceedings for the annulment of the notices contested in this action; and

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

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the right to a fair hearing
  The applicant complains that a premature definitive decision was reached, despite it being known that, without fault of the applicant, it was objectively impossible on the date of the decision for the documents proving appropriate use of funds to be submitted. Further, the objective impossibility of the provision of further information and evidence — for which the applicant was not responsible — was only temporary in nature. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the right to a fair hearing

The applicant complains that a premature definitive decision was reached, despite it being known that, without fault of the applicant, it was objectively impossible on the date of the decision for the documents proving appropriate use of funds to be submitted. Further, the objective impossibility of the provision of further information and evidence — for which the applicant was not responsible — was only temporary in nature.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a misapplication of EU law
  Further, the notices for recovery infringe Article 5(4) TFEU and Article 135(4) of the Financial Regulation and the agreement between the parties, as the actual conditions for recovery are not known. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a misapplication of EU law

Further, the notices for recovery infringe Article 5(4) TFEU and Article 135(4) of the Financial Regulation and the agreement between the parties, as the actual conditions for recovery are not known.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state adequate reasons for the recovery measures
  The recovery notices contain only superficial, general comments without discussions of specific cases and their content is therefore incomprehensible. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state adequate reasons for the recovery measures

The recovery notices contain only superficial, general comments without discussions of specific cases and their content is therefore incomprehensible.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality
  The recovery of the entire amount can only be used as a measure of last resort in certain exceptional circumstances, which are not present in the instant case. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality

The recovery of the entire amount can only be used as a measure of last resort in certain exceptional circumstances, which are not present in the instant case.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/33

---

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Grange Backup Power v Commission

(Case T-110/18)

(2018/C 166/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grange Backup Power Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7789 final of 24 November 2017 on the Irish Capacity Mechanism (SA.44464 (2017/N)) implemented by Ireland; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7789 final of 24 November 2017 on the Irish Capacity Mechanism (SA.44464 (2017/N)) implemented by Ireland;

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7794 final of 24 November 2017 on the Northern Irish Capacity Mechanism (SA.44465 (2017/N)) implemented by the United Kingdom; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7794 final of 24 November 2017 on the Northern Irish Capacity Mechanism (SA.44465 (2017/N)) implemented by the United Kingdom; and

| — | 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, the applicant relies on one plea in law, based on the failure of the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the Procedural Regulation, (1) notwithstanding the doubts raised as to the compatibility of the all-island capacity remuneration mechanism (CRM) with the state aid and internal market rules, thereby depriving the applicant of its procedural rights. This plea is divided into four branches:

| — | the first branch refers to the existence of serious difficulties evidenced by the duration and circumstances of the procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

the first branch refers to the existence of serious difficulties evidenced by the duration and circumstances of the procedure;

| — | the second branch alleges that the Commission should have had doubts regarding the compliance of the financing mechanism of the capacity remuneration mechanism with the TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

the second branch alleges that the Commission should have had doubts regarding the compliance of the financing mechanism of the capacity remuneration mechanism with the TFEU;

| — | the third branch alleges that the Commission should have had doubts regarding the compatibility of the CRM with the internal market, in particular the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

the third branch alleges that the Commission should have had doubts regarding the compatibility of the CRM with the internal market, in particular the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020; (2)

| — | in the fourth branch of its plea the applicant alleges that the Commission should have had doubts in its assessment of the capacity remuneration mechanism resulting from the effects of the United Kingdom’s notification to leave the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the fourth branch of its plea the applicant alleges that the Commission should have had doubts in its assessment of the capacity remuneration mechanism resulting from the effects of the United Kingdom’s notification to leave the European Union.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

(2)  Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1).

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/34

---

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Kuota International v EUIPO — Sintema Sport (K)

(Case T-136/18)

(2018/C 166/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Kuota International Corp. Ltd (British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sintema Sport Srl (Albiate, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative trade mark K — European Union trade mark No 11 380 771

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 3111/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | hold and rule that the present action is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

hold and rule that the present action is admissible;

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it found that the applicant did not provide evidence of bad faith and held that the action seeking a declaration of invalidity based on Article 59(1)(b) of the EUTMR may not be allowed; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it found that the applicant did not provide evidence of bad faith and held that the action seeking a declaration of invalidity based on Article 59(1)(b) of the EUTMR may not be allowed;

| — | declare European Union trade mark No 11 380 771 invalid on the basis of Article 59(1)(b) of the EUTMR; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare European Union trade mark No 11 380 771 invalid on the basis of Article 59(1)(b) of the EUTMR;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/35

---

Action brought on 2 March 2018 — Chrome Hearts v EUIPO — Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry (Representation of a cross)

(Case T-137/18)

(2018/C 166/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Chrome Hearts LLC (Hollywood, California, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

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: EU figurative mark (Representation of a cross) — Application for registration No 13 845 871

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2017 in Case R 766/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

partially annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO (and Intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO (and Intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 2017/1001, in as far as the contested goods ‘air fragrancing preparations’ and ‘dentifrices’ is concerned. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 2017/1001, in as far as the contested goods ‘air fragrancing preparations’ and ‘dentifrices’ is concerned.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/36

---

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-147/18)

(2018/C 166/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: APG Intercon Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 147 others (represented by: A. Markides, K. Scordis, A. Gavrielides, C. Velaris, C. Velaris, lawyers, A. Robertson QC (Queen’s Counsel) and G. Rothschild, Barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup (represented by the Council of the European Union) and European Union (represented by the European Commission)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus;

or in the alternative:

| — | declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants;

and in any event:

| — | order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the fundamental principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination:






  — | there was unlawful discrimination between creditors of Laiki Bank and/or between creditors of Bank of Cyprus as a result of measures adopted by European Union institutions; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the fundamental principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination:

—

there was unlawful discrimination between creditors of Laiki Bank and/or between creditors of Bank of Cyprus as a result of measures adopted by European Union institutions;

| — | the said breaches were sufficiently serious in that the institutions manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on their discretion; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the said breaches were sufficiently serious in that the institutions manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on their discretion; and

| — | there is a direct causal link between the breaches and the damage sustained by the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

there is a direct causal link between the breaches and the damage sustained by the applicants.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the fundamental principle of protection of property rights:






  — | the applicant depositors have been deprived of their property rights as a result of measures adopted by European Union institutions; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the fundamental principle of protection of property rights:

—

the applicant depositors have been deprived of their property rights as a result of measures adopted by European Union institutions;

| — | the applicant depositors have not been granted fair compensation for their resultant loss, in breach of the fundamental principle of protection of property rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant depositors have not been granted fair compensation for their resultant loss, in breach of the fundamental principle of protection of property rights;

| — | the said breaches were sufficiently serious in that the institutions manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on their discretion; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the said breaches were sufficiently serious in that the institutions manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on their discretion; and

| — | there is a direct causal link between the breaches and the damage sustained by the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

there is a direct causal link between the breaches and the damage sustained by the applicants.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/37

---

Action brought on 2 March 2018 — UE v Commission

(Case T-148/18)

(2018/C 166/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UE (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 20 November 2017 rejecting her complaint related to a request for compensation of the damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 20 November 2017 rejecting her complaint related to a request for compensation of the damage suffered by the applicant;

| — | grant the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the fault of the defendant, evaluated at the sum of 10 000 euros and; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the fault of the defendant, evaluated at the sum of 10 000 euros and;

| — | order the reimbursement of the applicant’s incurred costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the reimbursement of the applicant’s incurred 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 the violation by the defendant of the principle of sound administration and of Article 41 of the Charter on the principle of reasonable delay. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the violation by the defendant of the principle of sound administration and of Article 41 of the Charter on the principle of reasonable delay.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the respect by the applicant of the principle of reasonable delay in the submission of the request for assistance. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the respect by the applicant of the principle of reasonable delay in the submission of the request for assistance.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/37

---

Action brought on 7 March 2018 — Scordis, Papapetrou & Co and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-179/18)

(2018/C 166/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Scordis, Papapetrou & Co LLC (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 5 others (represented by: A. Markides, lawyer, A. Robertson, QC, and G. Rothschild, barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup (represented by the Council of the European Union) and European Union (represented by the European Commission)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus;

or in the alternative:

| — | declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants;

and in any event:

| — | order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-147/18, APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/38

---

Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VL and Others/Parliament

(Case T-183/18)

(2018/C 166/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: VL, VM, VN and VO (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and J. Probst, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The Applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the Defendant to produce, in accordance with Article 89 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court, the recording of the plenary session in question; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to produce, in accordance with Article 89 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court, the recording of the plenary session in question;

| — | declare the present application for damages admissible and well-founded and, therefore,






  i. | order the Defendant to compensate VL for the material and non-material damage resulting from the Defendant’s unlawful conduct and negligence; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare the present application for damages admissible and well-founded and, therefore,

i.

order the Defendant to compensate VL for the material and non-material damage resulting from the Defendant’s unlawful conduct and negligence;

| ii. | order the Defendant to compensate VM, VN and VO for the material and non-material damage resulting from the Defendant’s unlawful conduct and negligence; |
| --- | --- |

ii.

order the Defendant to compensate VM, VN and VO for the material and non-material damage resulting from the Defendant’s unlawful conduct and negligence;

| — | hear the case in camera in accordance with Article 31 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU and with Article 109 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court, in case the General Court should consider that the organisation of a hearing is necessary in the case at hand; and |
| --- | --- |

—

hear the case in camera in accordance with Article 31 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU and with Article 109 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court, in case the General Court should consider that the organisation of a hearing is necessary in the case at hand; and

| — | order the Defendant to pay all the costs relating to the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to pay all the costs relating to the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the Applicants argue that:

| — | the Defendant violated Articles 31 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, more generally, the general duty of care and diligence insofar as it failed to ensure that VL benefited from fair and just working conditions and from appropriate medical care and assistance; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Defendant violated Articles 31 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, more generally, the general duty of care and diligence insofar as it failed to ensure that VL benefited from fair and just working conditions and from appropriate medical care and assistance;

| — | due to the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, VL suffered material damage consisting of a significant reduction of his (current and future) professional income as well as non-material damage resulting from the irreversible and severe deterioration of his physical and mental condition, the loss of his political and academic careers and the very significant deterioration of his social and personal life; |
| --- | --- |

—

due to the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, VL suffered material damage consisting of a significant reduction of his (current and future) professional income as well as non-material damage resulting from the irreversible and severe deterioration of his physical and mental condition, the loss of his political and academic careers and the very significant deterioration of his social and personal life;

| — | due to the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, VM suffered material damage consisting in the loss of income; and that |
| --- | --- |

—

due to the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, VM suffered material damage consisting in the loss of income; and that

| — | due to the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, VM, VN and VO suffered material damage consisting in the payment of various administrative and legal fees and monthly nursing expenses and non-material damage. |
| --- | --- |

—

due to the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, VM, VN and VO suffered material damage consisting in the payment of various administrative and legal fees and monthly nursing expenses and non-material damage.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/39

---

Action brought on 9 March 2018 — VP v Cedefop

(Case T-187/18)

(2018/C 166/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present appeal admissible and founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present appeal admissible and founded;

| — | annul the decision of 12 May 2017 of the defendant rejecting the request of the applicant to renew the employment contract for an indefinite period; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 12 May 2017 of the defendant rejecting the request of the applicant to renew the employment contract for an indefinite period;

| — | annul the decision of 1 December 2017 of the defendant rejecting the complaint of the applicant of 9 August 2017 against the decision of 12 May 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 1 December 2017 of the defendant rejecting the complaint of the applicant of 9 August 2017 against the decision of 12 May 2017;

| — | order the compensation of the immaterial damage suffered by the applicant, evaluated ex aequo et bono to 100 000 (one hundred thousand) euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the compensation of the immaterial damage suffered by the applicant, evaluated ex aequo et bono to 100 000 (one hundred thousand) euros;

| — | order the compensation of the material damage suffered by the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the compensation of the material damage suffered by the applicant; and

| — | order the reimbursement of all the costs incurred by the applicant for the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the reimbursement of all the costs incurred by the applicant for the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law, alleging that: the decision of the defendant not to renew the employment contract of the applicant was adopted in violation of the right to be heard, the obligation of duty of care, the obligation to state reasons, in violation of the duty to hear the immediate superior; it suffers under a manifest error of appreciation and is vitiated by a misuse of powers.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/40

---

Action brought on 12 March 2018 — Papaconstantinou and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-188/18)

(2018/C 166/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Adonis Papaconstantinou (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 722 others (represented by: A. Markides, M. Ioannides, C. Velaris and C. Velaris, lawyers, A. Robertson, QC, and G. Rothschild, Barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup (represented by the Council of the European Union) and European Union (represented by the European Commission)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus;

or in the alternative:

| — | declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants;

and in any event:

| — | order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-147/18, APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/40

---

Action brought on 15 March 2018 — Lipitalia 2000 and Assograssi v Commission

(Case T-189/18)

(2018/C 166/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Lipitalia 2000 SpA (Turin, Italy), Assograssi — Associazione Nazionale Produttori Grassi e Proteine Animali (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Moretto, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to put to a vote, by the Regulatory Committee, pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 5a of Decision 1999/[468]/EC, a draft proposal to re-examine the prohibition on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers containing processed animal protein derived from ruminants, at present provided for in Annex IV, Chapter V, Section E, point 2, to Regulation No 999/2001, the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation No 999/2001, Regulation No 178/2002 and Regulation No 1069/2009, and has infringed the general principles of non-discrimination and proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to put to a vote, by the Regulatory Committee, pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 5a of Decision 1999/[468]/EC, a draft proposal to re-examine the prohibition on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers containing processed animal protein derived from ruminants, at present provided for in Annex IV, Chapter V, Section E, point 2, to Regulation No 999/2001, the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation No 999/2001, Regulation No 178/2002 and Regulation No 1069/2009, and has infringed the general principles of non-discrimination and proportionality;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants submit that even though, from 1 July 2017, the Commission has authorised once again the exportation of processed animal protein (PAP) derived from ruminants in view of the marked improvement in regard to the epidemiological status of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) in the European Union, the exportation of organic fertilisers and soil improvers (OFSIs) containing PAP remains inexplicably prohibited under Annex IV, Chapter V, Section E, point 2, to Regulation No 999/2001. That ban remains in force, even though almost all the Member States are now countries recognised as having a negligible BSE risk, despite the fact that the international standard determined by the OIE (Office international des épizooties) does not provide for a similar ban on OFSIs originating in countries which do have that risk status.

Moreover, according to the applicants, although the exportation of OFSIs (containing ruminant PAP) — even those originating in Member States recognised as having a negligible BSE risk — is, by contrast to the international standard determined by the OIE, prohibited, the European Union authorises the marketing of those products on its territory. What is more, it even authorises the importation of PAP from third countries, including countries recognised as having a controlled or undetermined BSE risk, including PAP derived from ruminants, and of products containing PAP, namely OFSIs.

The damage suffered by EU operators as a result of that ban on exporting OFSIs containing PAP from ruminants is, the applicants argue, enormous.

In support of their action, the applicants take the view that the Commission has an obligation under EU law to remedy the situation.

Specifically, the applicants rely on:

| 1. | Failure of the Commission to meet its obligations under Articles 7 and 5(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2001 L 147, p. 1), under Articles 5(3) and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law and laying down food safety procedures (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1), and under Article 43(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Failure of the Commission to meet its obligations under Articles 7 and 5(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2001 L 147, p. 1), under Articles 5(3) and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law and laying down food safety procedures (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1), and under Article 43(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 1).

| 2. | Failure of the Commission to meet its obligation to act, in accordance with the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality, under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and under Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Failure of the Commission to meet its obligation to act, in accordance with the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality, under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and under Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/42

---

Action brought on 19 March 2018 — Andreas Stihl v EUIPO — Giro Travel (Combination of colours grey and orange)

(Case T-193/18)

(2018/C 166/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG (Waiblingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker, M. Pemsel and C. Eulenpesch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Giro Travel Company (Roman, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU colour mark representing the combination of colours grey and orange — Trade mark registration No 7 472 723

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2018 in Case R 200/2017-2

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 including the costs in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 4 in connection with Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 4 in connection with Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/42

---

Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International v EUIPO — Wessanen Benelux (BonNatura)

(Case T-194/18)

(2018/C 166/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International GmbH (Köln, Germany) (represented by: S. Brandstätter, M. Kinkeldey and J. Rosenhäger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wessanen Benelux BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark BonNatura — Application for registration No 14 038 491

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2018 in Case R 949/2017-5.

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.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 46 of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 46 of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/43

---

Action brought on 20 March 2018 — Vital Capital Investments and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-196/18)

(2018/C 166/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Vital Capital Investments LP (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) and 6 others (represented by: A. Markides, M. Ioannides, C. Velaris and C. Velaris, lawyers, A. Robertson, QC, and G. Rothschild, Barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup (represented by the Council of the European Union) and European Union (represented by the European Commission)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus;

or in the alternative:

| — | declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants;

and in any event:

| — | order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-147/18, APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/44

---

Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Diusa Rendering and Assograssi v Commission

(Case T-201/18)

(2018/C 166/56)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Diusa Rendering Srl (Piacenza, Italy), Assograssi — Associazione Nazionale Produttori Grassi e Proteine Animali (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Moretto, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to put to a vote, by the Regulatory Committee, a draft proposal to re-examine the prohibition on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers derived from materials in Category 2, provided for in Article 43(3) of Regulation No 1069/2009, pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 5a of Decision 1999/648/EC, the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation No 1069/2009, Regulation No 178/2001 and Regulation No 999/2001 and breached the general principles of non-discrimination and proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to put to a vote, by the Regulatory Committee, a draft proposal to re-examine the prohibition on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers derived from materials in Category 2, provided for in Article 43(3) of Regulation No 1069/2009, pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 5a of Decision 1999/648/EC, the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation No 1069/2009, Regulation No 178/2001 and Regulation No 999/2001 and breached the general principles of non-discrimination and proportionality;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants submit that, until 2011, the export to third countries of organic fertilisers and soil improvers (OFSIs) derived from animal by-products in Category 2 (and/or 3) was permitted, the sole exception being the ban on exporting OFSIs containing processed animal protein (PAP) derived from ruminants, following the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 1), and because of the Commission’s failure to adopt the necessary implementation provisions the export to third countries of OFSIs derived from Category 2 materials is now prohibited. That ban is still in force, although almost all the EU Member States are now countries recognised as having a negligible BSE risk, despite the fact that the international standard determined by the Office international des épizooties (OIE) does not provide for a similar ban on OFSIs originating in countries with that risk status.

Moreover, the applicants continue, although the export of OFSIs derived from Category 2 materials — even those originating in Member States recognised as having a negligible BSE risk — is prohibited, the European Union authorises the marketing and use of those products on its territory; it thereby acknowledges that, in fact, OFSIs derived from Category 2 materials in accordance with the requirements imposed by Regulation No 1069/2009 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25 February 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2011 L 54, p. 1) do not represent a risk to human or animal health.

According to the applicants, although the European Union imposes a complete ban on exporting the OFSIs in the present case, it authorises imports from third countries — including from countries recognised as having a controlled or undetermined BSE risk — not only of foodstuffs and feed that may have been produced using OFSIs originating from third countries whose safety standards are not necessarily the same as those guaranteed in respect of OFSIs produced in the European Union, but also imports of live animals and fresh animal meat (pigs and poultry) that might have been directly fed with meal derived from, inter alia, ruminant materials.

The damage suffered by EU operators as a result of that ban on exporting OFSIs derived from Category 2 by-products is, in the applicants’ view, enormous.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-189/18, Lipitalia 2000 and Assograssi v Commission.

The applicants rely, in particular, on the infringement of Articles 43(3) and 52(4) of Regulation No 1069/2009.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/45

---

Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Bruel v Commission

(Case T-202/18)

(2018/C 166/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Damien Bruel (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Hansen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the present application admissible and well founded;

and consequently:

| — | annul the decision of 18 January 2018 entitled ‘Decision of the Secretary General pursuant to Article 4 of the rules implementing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001’ on the ground of infringement of Articles 4, 6 and 9 of that regulation, and infringement of Article 47 of the Charter, of Article 6 the European Convention on Human Rights, of the general principle of equality of arms, and of the duty to state reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 18 January 2018 entitled ‘Decision of the Secretary General pursuant to Article 4 of the rules implementing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001’ on the ground of infringement of Articles 4, 6 and 9 of that regulation, and infringement of Article 47 of the Charter, of Article 6 the European Convention on Human Rights, of the general principle of equality of arms, and of the duty to state reasons;

in any event:

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs;

| — | reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law:

| 1. | A first plea, alleging that Articles 4 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) have been infringed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A first plea, alleging that Articles 4 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) have been infringed.

| 2. | A second plea, alleging that Article 6 of Regulation No 1049/2001 has been infringed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

A second plea, alleging that Article 6 of Regulation No 1049/2001 has been infringed.

| 3. | A third plea, alleging that the general principle of equality of arms, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights have been infringed. |
| --- | --- |

3.

A third plea, alleging that the general principle of equality of arms, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights have been infringed.

| 4. | A fourth plea, alleging that Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the principle of proportionality and the duty to state reasons have been infringed. |
| --- | --- |

4.

A fourth plea, alleging that Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the principle of proportionality and the duty to state reasons have been infringed.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/46

---

Action brought on 22 March 2018 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Motor vehicles)

(Case T-209/18)

(2018/C 166/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 1230593-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2018 in Case R 945/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested Community design No 1230593-0001. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested Community design No 1230593-0001.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/46

---

Action brought on 22 March 2018 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Cars)

(Case T-210/18)

(2018/C 166/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 198387-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2018 in Case R 941/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested Community design No 198387-0001. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested Community design No 198387-0001.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/47

---

Action brought on 27 March 2018 — Brita v EUIPO (Shape of tap for preparing and dispensing beverages)

(Case T-213/18)

(2018/C 166/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Brita GmbH (Taunusstein, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark in black and white (Shape of tap for preparing and dispensing beverages) — Application for registration No 16 053 068

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2018 in Case R 1864/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order to accept the European Union Trademark Application no. 16 053 068 in relation to all the goods and services applied for in classes 7, 11, 21, 37 and 40; |
| --- | --- |

—

order to accept the European Union Trademark Application no. 16 053 068 in relation to all the goods and services applied for in classes 7, 11, 21, 37 and 40;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and the fees and costs of BRITA GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and the fees and costs of BRITA GmbH.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/48

---

Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL)

(Case T-222/18)

(2018/C 166/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal SA (Anadia, Portugal) (represented by: J. Mioludo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL — EU trade mark No 13 907 027

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2018 in Case R 1206/2017-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 4 April 2017 in Cancellation No. 13433 C; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 4 April 2017 in Cancellation No. 13433 C;

| — | refuse the application for a declaration of invalidity of EU trade mark registration No. 13 907 027 ‘ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL (fig.)’; |
| --- | --- |

—

refuse the application for a declaration of invalidity of EU trade mark registration No. 13 907 027 ‘ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL (fig.)’;

| — | maintain the EU trade mark registration No. 13 907 027 ‘ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL (fig.)’ valid for all the covered goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

maintain the EU trade mark registration No. 13 907 027 ‘ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL (fig.)’ valid for all the covered goods;

| — | order EUIPO and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to bear their own costs and pay those of the Appelant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to bear their own costs and pay those of the Appelant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/49

---

Order of the General Court of 13 mars 2018 — Amorepacific v EUIPO — Primavera Life (p primera Pure Sprout Energy)

(Case T-684/17) (1)

(2018/C 166/62)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.

---