ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 17 May 2018 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-6/17, Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (Black Label by Equivalenza)

(Case C-328/18 P)

(2018/C 341/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

Other parties to the proceedings: Equivalenza Manufactory, S.L. and ITM Entreprises SAS

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— order the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) of the EU trade mark regulation for the following reasons:

1. The General Court contradicted itself by acknowledging that there is a visual similarity while at the same time denying that the signs are visually similar;

2. The General Court erred by confirming without qualification the alleged conceptual difference found by the Board of Appeal;

3. The General Court erred by examining buying habits in the context of the examination of the similarity of the signs, instead of doing so when carrying out the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion;
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2018 — Cargill Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

(Case C-360/18)

(2018/C 328/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cargill Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

Question referred

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

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

Are the criteria according to which to decide whether a public prosecutor designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) [of the Framework Decision (1)] is a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States that (1) the public prosecutor is independent from the executive and (2) considered in his own legal system to administer justice or participate in the administration of justice?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 June 2018 — Otis Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others

(Case C-435/18)

(2018/C 352/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Otis Gesellschaft m.b.H., Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Kone Aktiengesellschaft, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge Gesellschaft m.b.H.

Respondents: Land Oberösterreich, Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgenossenschaft ‘Lebensräume’ eingetragene Gen.m.b.H., EBS Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH, WAG Wohnungsanlagen Gesellschaft m.b.H., WSG Gemeinnützige Wohn- und Siedlergemeinschaft reg. Gen.m.b.H., Neue Heimat Oberösterreich Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und SiedlungsgesmbH, BRW Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft ‘Baureform Wohnstätte’ eingetragene Gen.m.b.H., Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft ‘Familie’ eingetragene Gen.m.b.H., VLW Vereinigte Linzer Wohnungsgenossenschaften Gemeinnützige GmbH, Gemeinnützige Steyrer Wohn- und Siedlungs Genossenschaft ‘Styria’ reg.Gen.m.b.H., Innviertler Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft reg.Gen.m.b.H., Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgesellschaft der Stadt Steyr GmbH, Gemeinnützige Industrie-Wohnungsaktiengesellschaft, Gemeinnützige Siedlungsgesellschaft m.b.H. für den Bezirk Vöcklabruck, GEWOG Neues Heim Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgesellschaft m.b.H.

Question referred

Are Article 85 TEC, Article 81 EC and Article 101 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to maintain the full effectiveness of those provisions and the practical effectiveness of the prohibition resulting from those provisions, it is necessary that compensation for losses may also be claimed from members of a cartel by persons who are not active as suppliers or customers on the relevant product and geographic market affected by a cartel, but who grant loans to buyers of the products offered on the market affected by the cartel under preferential terms as funding bodies within the scope of statutory provisions, and whose loss lies in the fact that the loan amount granted as a percentage of the product costs was higher than what it would have been without the cartel agreement, which means that they were unable profitably to invest those amounts?
1.

Should the phrases ‘the staff involved in the official controls’ in point 1 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (‘Regulation No 882/2004’) and ‘the staff involved in the official controls’ in point 2 of Annex VI to Regulation No 882/2004 be interpreted as meaning that the (salary) costs that may be taken into account when calculating the fees for official controls, may only be the (salary) costs of official veterinarians and official auxiliaries who perform the official inspections, or can they also include the (salary) costs of other staff employed by the Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit (Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority; ‘NVWA’) or by the private company Kwaliteitskeuring Dierlijke Sector (‘KDS’)?
3.

If it is a concept that must be interpreted under EU law autonomously: Must a non-profit-making organisation within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax have rules that apply in the event that the organisation is dissolved, under which it has to transfer its existing assets to another non-profit-making organisation in order to promote sport and physical education?
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 6 August 2018 — QE v Sun Express Germany GmbH

(Case C-516/18)

(2018/C 408/51)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: QE

Defendant: Sun Express Germany GmbH

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 22 August 2018.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 August 2018 — XW v Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz

(Case C-536/18)

(2018/C 427/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XW

Defendant: Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz

Question referred

May a portion of the salary costs of staff employed in the administration of and in the collection of fees for official inspections be taken into account in a fee collected in accordance with Article 27(2) and (4) of, in conjunction with Annex VI to, Regulation No 882/2004? (1)

(1) Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1).
1.

Error in the application of the law by the General Court, resulting in an infringement of EU law, in so far as it found that the Council correctly applied the presumption that the appellant was a prominent businessman carrying out his business in Syria, given that that presumption has no legal basis and is disproportionate in relation to the legal objective pursued.
Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-786/14: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others v Council of the European Union and Others

(Case C-604/18 P)

(2018/C 427/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister, K. Chrysostomides, Δικηγόρος)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Euro Group, represented by the Council of the European Union, European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— quash the decision of the General Court;

— grant the orders sought by the applicants in the proceedings before the General Court;

— order the respondents to pay the costs of this appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants consider that the General Court erred in law by:

(a) finding that the Euro Group did not require Cyprus to take the measures causing them loss or that those measures were not required by action attributable to the EU.

(b) considering that the ECB press release of 21 March 2013 did not cause harm to the appellants;

(c) holding that by certain other acts the respondents did not require Cyprus to continue to implement the harmful measures and/or did not require the adoption of the harmful measures introduced by the amendments made to the harmful decrees on 30 July 2013;

(d) considering that not all of the harmful measures were required by Council Decision 2013/236 (1);

(e) finding that there was no serious breach of the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms; the principle of protection of legitimate expectations; and the principle of non-discrimination.

The appellants argue that the harmful measures fail to satisfy the requirement that restrictions on the right to property must be provided by law and also the requirement of proportionality. They consider that the conduct of the respondents gave rise to a legitimate expectation that no bail-in measures would be taken imposing a ‘haircut’ on their assets. They consider that as depositors, shareholders or bondholders in the Bank of Cyprus and/or Laiki suffered discrimination, inter alia, vis-à-vis depositors, shareholders or bondholders respectively in banks in other Eurozone Member States who benefited from financial assistance similar to that granted to Cyprus.

(1) Council Decision of 25 April 2013 addressed to Cyprus on specific measures to restore financial stability and sustainable growth (OJ 2013, L 141, p. 32).
Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 17 September 2018 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2018 in Case T-646/16 P, Simpson / Council

(Case C-542/18 RX)

(2018/C 427/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties to the proceedings before the General Court

Applicant: Erik Simpson (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Questions to be reviewed

Whether, having regard, in particular, to the general principle of legal certainty, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2018, Simpson v Council, affects the unity or consistency of EU law in that the General Court, as the court hearing the appeal, held that the composition of the panel of judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal which had delivered the order of 24 June 2016, Simpson v Council, had been irregular, on the basis of an irregularity affecting the procedure for the appointment of one of the members of that panel of judges, leading to infringement of the principle of the lawful judge, laid down in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Whether, like the acts covered by Article 277 TFEU, the appointment of a judge may form the subject matter of a review of indirect legality or whether such a review of indirect legality is — by principle or after the passage of a certain period of time — excluded or limited to certain types of irregularity in order to ensure legal certainty and the force of res judicata.
1.

Must Article 5 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 (1) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the weekly rest period is permitted to overlap with paid leave of absence intended to meet needs other than rest?
Action brought on 12 October 2018 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-637/18)

(2018/C 427/42)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Petersen y K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought by the applicant

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by systematically and persistently failing to comply with the daily limit value applicable to the concentration of PM10 in parts of Budapest (HU0001) and the valley of Sajó (HU0008) each year from 1 February 2005, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe; (1)

— declare that, by systematically and persistently failing to comply with the daily limit values applicable to the concentration of PM10 in the area of Pécs (HU0006) each year from 11 June 2011 — with the exception of 2014 — Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe;

— declare that, from 11 June 2010, Hungary has failed to fulfil the obligation laid down in Article 23(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XV to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe which provides, in particular, in the second paragraph of that article, that the exceedance period of those limit values should be kept as short as possible;

— order Hungary to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

From 1 February 2005, the daily limit value of PM10 was exceeded in two air quality zones and, from 11 June 2011, in one additional zone. In spite of that infringement of Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50, Hungary, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, has not adopted any appropriate measures within the air quality plans so that the exceedance period could be kept as short as possible.

The ineffectiveness of the measures at issue is clear from, inter alia, the period of exceeding the limit values, the level and evolution of those limit values, and from the detailed examination of the air quality plans adopted by the Hungarian authorities.

(1) OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.
—

declare that, in relation to Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ 2015, L 141, p. 73), Ireland has failed to adopt by 26 June 2017 at the latest all provisions transposing that Directive or, in any event, has failed to notify the Commission of any such measures, such that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 67(1) of that Directive;
—

Third, the General Court infringes Article 119 of its Rules of Procedure and Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice by not stating reasons for concluding that: (i) the evidence adduced by Apple to assess the impact that the aid might have on its competitive position on the market for the provision of home video entertainment services in Germany is insufficient; and (ii) the existence of individual concern must be established by reference to the point in time when the contested measure is devised, adopted and implemented at national level.
1.

A. Must Article 14(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, an international truck driver in paid employment is to be regarded as being a member of the driving staff of: (a) the transport company which has recruited the person concerned, to which the person concerned is de facto fully available for an indefinite period, which exercises effective control over the person concerned and which actually bears the wage costs; or (b) the company which has formally concluded an employment contract with the truck driver and which, by agreement with the transport company referred to under (a), paid the worker a salary and paid contributions in respect thereof in the Member State where that company has its registered office and not in the Member State where the transport company referred to in (a) has its registered office; (c) both the company under (a) and the company under (b)? B. Must Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, the employer of an international truck driver in paid employment is considered to be: (a) the transport company which has recruited the person concerned, to which the person concerned is de facto fully available for an indefinite period, which exercises effective control over the person concerned and which actually bears the wage costs; or (b) the company which has formally concluded an employment contract with the truck driver and which, by agreement with the transport company referred to under (a), paid the worker a salary and paid contributions in respect thereof in the Member State where that company has its registered office and not in the Member State where the transport company referred to in (a) has its registered office; (c) both the company under (a) and the company under (b)?
2.

Is discrimination against independent operators as prohibited under the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 present in the case where a manufacturer, by engaging an information service provider, opens a further channel for information on the sale of original replacement parts by authorised dealers and repairers?
Official Journal of the European Union

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

(Case C-300/18 P)

(2019/C 16/33)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

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

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

By order of 11 October 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) decided that the appeal was manifestly unfounded.
2.

Must the expression ‘in exceptional cases’ that is a proviso for application of Article 2(5) of the Council Directive of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the [EEC] Treaty [now Article 50(2)(g) TFEU] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies and that allows application of a (different) provision of that directive to be excluded be interpreted as meaning that the provision in question can apply only on condition that it is found that compliance with the provisions of the directive, together with, where applicable, additional disclosure in the notes on the accounts in accordance with Article 2(4) of that directive, cannot adversely affect compliance with the principle that a true and fair view must be given?
2.

Must those provisions be interpreted in particular as precluding a situation in which reductions of the basis of assessment intended to take into account the period for which securities have been held do not apply to the deferred capital gain, having regard to the fact that that basis of assessment rule did not apply on the date on which the capital gain arose, but they do apply to the capital gain on a transfer of the securities received in exchange, taking into account the date of the exchange instead of the date on which the securities given in exchange were acquired?
1.

Within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/65/EC (1), is a contract concluded ‘under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme run by the supplier’, by means of which an existing loan agreement is amended solely with regard to the interest rate agreed (follow-up interest agreement), if a branch bank concludes loan agreements for the purpose of financing an immovable property secured by mortgage only at its commercial premises, but in ongoing business dealings concludes contracts to amend loan agreements that have already been agreed in some cases also by making exclusive use of means of distance communication?
5.

Where, in its interpretation, the Court of Justice holds that the European legislation is compatible with the interpretation asserted by the opposing parties, can the Court of Justice assess the lawfulness, in European terms, of Article 10 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 241/2014, in the light of Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (whereby: ‘Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest’), supplemented, also in the light of Article 52(3) of that Charter (whereby: ‘In so far as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention. This provision shall not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection’) and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights?
—

threats of financial penalties and impositions of financial penalties have not resulted in a significant persuasive effect even if higher amounts than before have been threatened and imposed, for the reason that the payment of penalties does not involve actual losses for the Federal Land sentenced by a final judgment, but rather, in this respect, there is merely a transfer of the amount imposed in each case from one accounting item within the Land’s budget to another accounting item within the Land’s budget,