Official Journal C 64/7 Fe

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/2

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra — Portugal) — Liberty Seguros, Compañia de Seguros y Reaseguros, SA — Sucursal em Portugal, formerly Liberty Seguros SA v DR

(Case C-375/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Obligatory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Insurance contract concluded on the basis of false statements - International transport of persons and goods without authorisation - Nullity of the insurance contract - Invoking that nullity against third-party victims and the body responsible for compensating victims)

(2022/C 64/02)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Liberty Seguros, Compañia de Seguros y Reaseguros, SA — Sucursal em Portugal, formerly Liberty Seguros SA

Defendant: DR

Interveners: Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, VS, FN, JT, Seguradoras Unidas SA

Operative part of the order

The first paragraph of Article 3 and Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which would have the effect of making it possible to invoke against third parties who are victims of a motor vehicle accident the nullity of a contract for motor vehicle insurance against civil liability that arises as a result of the policyholder conducting a commercial activity of international transport without authorisation and of the omissions or false statements of that person with regard to the insurance company at the time that contract was concluded, even though the third-party victims are passengers who could not have been unaware of that lack of authorisation.

(1) OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/3

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — EuroChem Agro Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-583/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 273 - Fight against fraud - Declaration obligation relating to the transport of goods - Road freight electronic monitoring system - Penalty regime applicable to high-risk taxpayers - Proportionality)

(2022/C 64/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EuroChem Agro Hungary Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the order

Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation under which taxpayers classified as ‘high-risk taxpayers’, within the meaning of national law, are required to pay a fine intended to penalise irregularities in shipment of goods declarations, the amount of which cannot in any circumstances be less than 30 % of 40 % of the value of the goods.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/3

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto Este — Penafiel — Juízo Trabalho — Portugal) — B v O, P, OP, G, N

(Case C-691/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU law - Principles - Article 18 TFEU - Equal treatment - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Prohibition - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Joint and several liability of companies which form part of a group for debts resulting from an employment contract entered into by one of those companies - Exclusion by the legislation of the Member State concerned of companies that have their seat in another Member State)

(2022/C 64/04)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto Este — Penafiel — Juízo Trabalho

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B

Defendants: O, P, OP, G, N

Operative part of the order

The principle of non-discrimination, implemented by Article 49 TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which a company, established in a Member State other than that in which the company which it controls is established, cannot be held jointly and severally liable for that latter company’s debts resulting from an employment contract.

(1) OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/4

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — NSV, NM v BT

(Case C-87/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Scope - Article 1(2) - Contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions - Credit agreements denominated in a foreign currency - Terms relating to the exchange rate risk which reproduce a supplementary provision of national law - Alleged failure to fulfil the obligation of information borne by the banking institution providing the loan - Requirement of good faith - Examination to be carried out by the national court as a matter of priority in the light of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13)

(2022/C 64/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: NSV, NM

Respondent: BT

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a term inserted into a credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency that has been concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which reflects a disposition of national law that is supplementary in nature, does not fall within the scope of that directive, even if:

—	that disposition of national law has not been assessed by the national legislature with a view to create a balance between the interests of the consumer and of the seller or supplier, in the specific context of bank credit agreements concluded with consumers;

—	the seller or supplier inserted that term into the agreement concerned without fulfilling its information and transparency obligations;

—

there is evidence which supports the view that the seller or supplier concerned inserted the term in question into that agreement in bad faith, it not being possible for that seller or supplier to be unaware of the fact that the application of that same term was liable to cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to that agreement, to the detriment of the consumer.

(1) OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/5

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — Monument Vandekerckhove NV v Stad Gent

(Case C-316/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 2014/24/EU - Conduct of the procedure - Choice of participants and award of contracts - Article 63 - Tenderer relying on the capacities of another entity in order to meet the requirements of the contracting authority - Failure to meet the requirements relating to the technical and professional ability of the tenderer by the entity on whose capacities the tenderer intends to rely - Obligation to allow that tenderer to replace that entity - Principle of proportionality)

(2022/C 64/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Monument Vandekerckhove NV

Defendant: Stad Gent

Other parties: Denys NV, Aelterman BVBA

Operative part of the order

The second subparagraph of Article 63(1) of 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, read in conjunction with the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality as set out in Article 18(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that, where it ascertains that an entity on whose capacity an economic operator intends to rely does not fulfil the selection criteria, the contracting authority is obliged to request that the economic operator replace that entity, if it does not wish to be excluded from the public procurement procedure concerned.

(1) OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/6

Appeal brought on 23 June 2021 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) against the judgment delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-579/19, The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-382/21 P)

(2022/C 64/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Hanf, D. Gája, E. Markakis, V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal of the General Court of the European Union of 14 April 2021 in Case T-579/19, The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann v EUIPO (Gymnastic or sports equipment);

—	reject in its entirety the applicant’s claim at first instance, brought against the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal in Case R 573/2019-3;

—	order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant, EUIPO, raises, as a ground of appeal, an infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 (1) which is an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law within the meaning of Article 58a(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

The judgment under appeal infringes Article 41(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, in so far as it finds, contrary to the clear and unambiguous wording of that provision, that it does not cover the case (lacuna legis) that priority as regards a registered Community design may be based on an earlier ‘patent’. By doing so, the General Court disregarded the clear and unambiguous choice of the EU legislature laid down in that provision for patents as a basis for priority claims with regard to registered Community designs and to limit such claims exclusively to earlier designs or utility models.

In addition, the judgment under appeal infringes Article 41(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 in so far as it substitutes its express and exhaustive provision through direct recourse to Article 4 (2) of the Paris Convention. By doing so, the inevitable recognition of the direct effect of the rule in Article 4 of the Paris Convention infringes consistent case-law of the Court of Justice in which neither the Paris Convention or the TRIPs Agreement (3) are appropriate for establishing rights on which individuals can rely on the basis of EU law before the courts in the European Union.

Finally, the judgment under appeal infringes Article 41(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 in so far as it also substitutes an erroneous interpretation of its express and exhaustive provision with Article 4 of the Paris Convention. The Paris Convention does not contain any basis in law capable of substantiating the General Court’s findings under which the period for claiming priority for a patent, as regards a registered Community design, may be based on a 12-month period.

The fundamental principles of the relationship between international law and EU law that were misinterpreted in the judgment under appeal, among other things serve the protection of the institutional balance and the autonomy of the EU legal order and take an important position in the constitutive EU legal order. The judgment under appeal not only has an effect on the issue of priority claims for the registration of intellectual property rights but also constitutes a precedent for all regulatory areas that fall within the scope of the TRIPs Agreement.

Appeal allowed to proceed

By order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 10 December 2021 the appeal was granted in its entirety.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).

(2) Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 20 March 1883, last revised at Stockholm (Sweden) on 14 July 1967 and amended on 28 September 1979 (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 828, No 11851, p. 305; ‘the Paris Convention’).

(3) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 214) (‘TRIPs Agreement’).

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 24 August 2021 — A.S. v Bank M. SA

(Case C-520/21)

(2022/C 64/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.S.

Defendant: Bank M. SA

Question referred

Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) and the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and proportionality be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation pursuant to which, where a loan agreement entered into by and between a bank and a consumer is found to have been null and void from the outset because it contains unfair terms, the parties, in addition to the reimbursement of the sums paid in the performance of that agreement (the bank — loan principal, and the consumer — monthly payments, fees, commissions and insurance premiums) and statutory interest for late payment from the date of the demand for payment, may pursue any other claims (including remuneration, compensation, reimbursement of expenses or indexation of the amounts paid) on the grounds that:

1.	the person making the monetary consideration was temporarily deprived of the use of his or her money, so that he or she has lost the opportunity to invest it and thus to make a profit;

2.	the person making the monetary consideration incurred the costs of servicing the loan agreement and of transferring the money to the other party;

3.	the recipient of the monetary consideration had the benefit of being able to temporarily use someone else’s money, including being able to invest it and thus to make a profit;

4.	the recipient of the monetary consideration was temporarily able to use someone else’s money free of charge, which would have been impossible under market conditions;

5.	the purchasing power of the money has decreased with time, which translates to a loss in real terms for the person making the monetary consideration;

6.	the temporary provision of money may be treated as rendering a service for which the person making the monetary consideration has not received remuneration?

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

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/9

Appeal brought on 25 August 2021 by PL against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-586/19, PL v Commission

(Case C-537/21 P)

(2022/C 64/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: PL (represented by: N. de Montigny, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	allow the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal

—	refer the case back to the General Court

—	order the defendant to the appeal to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in these proceedings and at first instance

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his appeal, the appellant submits, in essence, the following grounds of appeal and arguments:

The rejection of the first part of the first plea in law in the action for annulment:

The word ‘whistleblower’, used by the General Court, does not appear in the Staff Regulations and implies a negative and biased assessment.

In regarding it as essential that a connection is established between the contested appraisal procedure and the allegations made by the appellant before OLAF, the General Court erred in law and contradicted the guidance provided in Case T-689/16.

The General Court failed to have regard to the content of the documents before the Court and the scope of the protection attached to the status of informant and unlawfully reversed the burden of obligations and of proof.

The General Court also erred in law and ruled ultra petita by finding that the appellant had not requested the Secretary-General to take on the role of appeal assessor or requested the Reports Committee to meet.

The rejection of the second part of the first plea in law in the action for annulment:

The General Court unlawfully held admissible and reliable Annex D.7 submitted by the Commission.

The General Court erred in law and ruled ultra petita by criticising the appellant for not having challenged the appointment of F as assessor during the appraisal procedure. It also misconstrued the wording of Article 3(3) of the GIP.

The General Court held, contrary to the evidence contained in the court file, that the conflict was only an alleged conflict even though it was not disputed that there was a conflict.

The General Court also wrongly held that the appellant had not demonstrated that, without the alleged defect, the assessment would have been different.

The rejection of the second part of the second plea in the action for annulment:

The General Court failed to address the question of the admissibility and reliability of Annex D.7 whereas it relied on that document.

The General Court failed to have regard to the protection attached to the status of informant and failed to ascertain whether there was subjective partiality vitiating the appraisal procedure.

The General Court prejudged the potential outcome of a judgment ordering annulment and ruled ultra petita. It also infringed the principle of audi alteram partem.

The General Court also wrongly applied the GIP concerning appraisal.

The rejection of the first part of the third plea in law in the action for annulment:

By holding that the report was based on specific, reliable and verified information, the General Court failed to have regard to the factual evidence and documents submitted by the parties. It also imposed an unlawful condition of admissibility of the plea and failed to have regard to the rules applicable in the event of long-term absences. Lastly, it unlawfully failed to analyse the appellant’s position on the substance of the case.

5.	The rejection of the second part of the third plea in law in the action for annulment: The General Court failed to have regard to the rules on the taking of evidence and infringed the principle of audi alteram partem and the rights of the defence.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy Warszawa-Praga w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 17 September 2021 — FY v Profi Credit Polska S.A.

(Case C-582/21)

(2022/C 64/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy Warszawa-Praga w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: FY

Respondent: Profi Credit Polska S.A.

Questions referred

Must Articles 4(3) and 19(1) TEU, having regard to the principle of equivalence which arises from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of EU law given pursuant to Article 267(1) TFEU constitutes grounds for reopening civil proceedings which ended with a final judgment, if a provision of national law, such as Article 4011 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allows proceedings to be reopened in the event that a final judgment is given on the basis of a provision which has been held by a judgment of the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Constitutional Court, Poland) to be incompatible with a higher-ranking law?

Does the principle of interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law arising from Article 4(3) TEU and from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union require a broad interpretation of a provision of national law, such as Article 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, so as to include in the grounds for reopening proceedings set out therein a final default judgment in which the court, infringing the obligations arising from the judgment of the Court of Justice in Profi Credit (C-176/17), omitted to examine a contract between a consumer and a lender in terms of unfair contractual terms and limited itself to examining only the formal validity of the promissory note?

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n.o 2 de Granadilla de Abona (Spain) lodged on 14 October 2021 — JF and NS v Diamond Resorts Europe Limited (Sucursal en España), Diamond Resorts Spanish Sales S.L. and Sunterra Tenerife Sales S.L.

(Case C-632/21)

(2022/C 64/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n.o 2 de Granadilla de Abona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: JF and NS

Defendants: Diamond Resorts Europe Limited (Sucursal en España), Diamond Resorts Spanish Sales S.L. and Sunterra Tenerife Sales S.L.

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

Are the 1980 Rome Convention (1) on the law applicable to contractual obligations and Regulation No 593/2008 (2) on the law applicable to contractual obligations to be construed as applying to contracts in which both parties are United Kingdom nationals?

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative

Is Regulation No 593/2008 to be construed as applying to contracts concluded before its entry into force, pursuant to Article 24 of that regulation? If the answer is no, must a club-points-based timeshare contract be treated as falling within the scope of Articles 4(3) or (5) of the 1980 Rome Convention, including where the consumer has chosen the law of a State other than his or her State of habitual residence as the applicable law? Further, if the answer is that such contracts can come under either provision, which set of rules takes priority?

Irrespective of the answers to the second question, is a club-points-based timeshare contract to be treated as a contract for the acquisition of rights in rem in immovable property or association-type rights in personam?

—

If it is considered that rights in rem are acquired, for the purposes of determining the law applicable, which of Article 4(c) and 6(1) of Regulation No 593/2008 is applicable by way priority, including in the event that the consumer chooses the law of a State other than that of his or her State of habitual residence as the applicable law?

—

If it is considered that rights in personam are acquired, are those rights to be treated as a tenancy of immovable property, for the purposes of Article 4(c), or as a provision of services, for the purposes of Article 4(b)? Further, and in any event, is Article 6(1) applicable by way of priority in so far as the contract is with a consumer and/or user, including where the consumer chooses the law of a State other than that of his or her State of habitual residence as the applicable law?

In all of the above cases, is national legislation which states that ‘all contracts concerning rights relating to the use of one or more immovable properties situated in Spain during a specified or specifiable period of the year are subject to the provisions of this Law, regardless of the place or the date on which such contracts were concluded’ to be interpreted as being compatible with the provisions governing the applicable law laid down in the 1980 Rome Convention and in Regulation No 593/2008?

(1) Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6).

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 15 October 2021 — LB GmbH v Hauptzollamt D

(Case C-635/21)

(2022/C 64/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LB GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt D

Question referred

Is the combined nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2016 L 294 of 28 October 2016, p. 1), (2) to be interpreted as meaning that ‘air loungers’ such as those in the present case and as described in more detail in the order come under subheading 9401 80 00?

(1) OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2016 L 294, p. 1.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 19 October 2021 — SC Zes Zollner Electronic SRL v Direcția Regională Vamală Cluj — Biroul Vamal de Frontieră Aeroport Cluj Napoca

(Case C-640/21)

(2022/C 64/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Zes Zollner Electronic SRL

Respondent: Direcția Regională Vamală Cluj — Biroul Vamal de Frontieră Aeroport Cluj Napoca

Questions referred

1.	Does Article 173 or Article 174 of Regulation No 952/2013 (1) apply where the consignee of the goods reports a quantity in excess of that stated in the original customs declaration?

2.	Does the expression ‘goods other than those which [the customs declaration] originally covered’ within the meaning of Article 173 of the regulation refer to goods that differ quantitatively or qualitatively, or both?

In the case of a quantitative difference that exceeds the quantity of goods stated in the customs declaration, does the consignee of the goods have any procedural remedy under the [abovementioned] regulation enabling the consignee to correct the errors without incurring administrative or criminal penalties?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 28 October 2021 — LM v KP

(Case C-654/21)

(2022/C 64/22)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant and counter-defendant: LM

Defendant and counter-claimant: KP

Questions referred

Must Article 124(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, (1) read in conjunction with Article 128(1) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘counterclaim for … a declaration of invalidity’ contained in those provisions may mean a [counter]claim for a declaration of invalidity only to the extent that that counterclaim is connected with the claimant’s EU trade mark infringement claim, thus allowing a national court not to hear a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity the scope of which is broader than that connected with the claimant’s infringement claim?

Must Article 129(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark be interpreted as meaning that the provision in question, which concerns ‘the rules of procedure governing the same type of action relating to a national trade mark’, refers to the national rules of procedure which would be applicable to specific proceedings concerning infringement of an EU trade mark (and to proceedings resulting from a statement of counterclaim seeking a declaration of invalidity), or does it refer generally to the national rules of procedure present in the legal order of a Member State, this being relevant in cases where, on account of the date on which the specific proceedings concerning infringement of an EU trade mark were initiated, the rules of procedure governing a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of a trade mark relating to national trade marks were not present in the legal order of a given Member State?

(1) OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 5 November 2021 — NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS AG v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-664/21)

(2022/C 64/23)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS AG

Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

Question referred

Do the provisions of the VAT Directive, (1) in particular Articles 131 and 138(1) thereof, and the principles of EU law, in particular the principles of tax neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality, preclude national legislation which prohibits the submission and acceptance of new evidence to demonstrate satisfaction of the substantive requirements laid down in Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive, already during the administrative procedure at first instance, and more specifically in the context of the observations submitted on the tax inspection report issued before a tax assessment notice has been issued?

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

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível da Póvoa de Varzim (Portugal) lodged on 9 November 2021 — Gencoal S.A. v Conceito Norte — Consultadoria de Gestão, Lda., BT

(Case C-669/21)

(2022/C 64/24)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível da Póvoa de Varzim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gencoal S.A.

Defendant: Conceito Norte — Consultadoria de Gestão, Lda., BT

Question referred for a preliminary ruling

The question which is referred in connection with the examination of this dispute is whether Article 31(1) and (4) of Royal Decree 1624/1992 of 29 December 1992 approving the Spanish VAT Regulations and Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/9/EC (1) of 12 February 2008, by providing, in the case of the former, that the period for the filing of an application for a VAT refund by traders or professional practitioners not established in the territory of application of the tax but established within the Community [European Union] starts to run [on the day] following the last day of each calendar quarter or each calendar year and ends on 30 September of the year following the calendar year in which the tax concerned was paid, and, in the case of the latter, that the refund application must be submitted to the Member State of establishment not later than 30 September of the calendar year following the refund period, infringe the principle of fiscal neutrality (with consequences for neutrality in the context of competition and the principle of equal treatment from the point of view of the prohibition of discrimination) which flows from the common system of VAT as derived from recitals 4, 5 and 7 and Articles 167, 170, 171 and 178 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC (3) of 12 February 2008, and the fundamental right enshrined in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(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).

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

(3) Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the place of supply of services (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 11).

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 November 2021 — BA v Finanzamt X

(Case C-670/21)

(2022/C 64/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BA

Defendant: Finanzamt X

Question referred

Are Articles 63(1), 64 and 65 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the levying of inheritance tax which, for the purposes of calculating inheritance tax, provides that developed immovable property forming part of personal assets which is located in a third country (in this case: Canada) and is let for residential purposes is to be taken into account at its full value, whereas immovable property forming part of personal assets which is located within the national territory, in a Member State of the European Union or in a State of the European Economic Area and is let for residential purposes is to be taken into account at only 90 % of its value in the calculation of inheritance tax?

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hagen (Germany) lodged on 16 November 2021 — BL v Saturn Electro-Handelsgesellschaft mbH Hagen

(Case C-687/21)

(2022/C 64/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hagen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BL

Defendant: Saturn Electro-Handelsgesellschaft mbH Hagen

Questions referred

1.	As no automatic legal effects are specified, is the compensation rule enacted in Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) invalid in the case of non-material damage?

2.	Is it necessary, for the purposes of the right to compensation, to establish the occurrence of non-material damage, to be demonstrated by the claimant, in addition to the unauthorised disclosure of the protected data to an unauthorised third party?

Does the accidental disclosure of the personal data of the data subject (name, address, occupation, income, employer) to a third party in a paper document (printout), as the result of a mistake by employees of the processing undertaking, suffice in order to establish infringement of the General Data Protection Regulation?

Where the undertaking accidentally discloses, through its employees, data entered in an automated data processing system to an unauthorised third party in the form of a printout, does that accidental disclosure to a third party qualify as unlawful further processing (Article 2(1), Article 5(1)(f), Article 6(1) and Article 24 of the General Data Protection Regulation)?

Is non-material damage within the meaning of Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation incurred even where the third party who received the document containing the personal data did not read the data before returning the document containing the information, or does the discomfort of the person whose personal data were unlawfully disclosed suffice for the purpose of establishing non-material damage within the meaning of Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation, given that every unauthorised disclosure of personal data entails the risk, which cannot be eliminated, that the data might nevertheless have been passed on to any number of people or even misused?

Where accidental disclosure to third parties is preventable through better supervision of the undertaking’s helpers and/or better data security arrangements, for example by handling collections separately from contract documentation (especially financing documentation) under separate collection notes or by sending the documentation internally to the collection counter without giving the customer the printed documents and collection note, how serious should the infringement be considered to be (Article 32(1)(b) and (2) and Article 4, point 7, of the General Data Protection Regulation)?

7.	Is compensation for non-material damage to be regarded as the award of a penalty similar to a contract penalty?

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

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 16 November 2021 — X v Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet

(Case C-689/21)

(2022/C 64/27)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet

Questions referred

Does Article 20 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 7 [of the Charter], preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which citizenship of that Member State is, in principle, lost by operation of law on reaching the age of 22 in the case of persons born outside that Member State who have never lived in that Member State and who have also not resided there in circumstances that indicate a close attachment to that Member State, with the result that persons who do not also have citizenship of another Member State are deprived of their status as Union citizens and of the rights attaching to that status, taking into account that it follows from the legislation at issue in the main proceedings that:

(a)	a close attachment to the Member State is presumed to exist, in particular, after a total of one year’s residence in that Member State,

(b)

if an application to retain citizenship is submitted before the person reaches the age of 22, authorisation to retain citizenship of the Member State under less stringent conditions may be obtained and for that purpose the competent authorities must examine the consequences of loss of citizenship, and

(c)

lost citizenship can be recovered after the person concerned reaches the age of 22 only by means of naturalisation, to which a number of requirements are attached, including that of uninterrupted residence in the Member State for a longer duration, although the period of residence may be somewhat shortened for former nationals of that Member State?

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 18 November 2021 — Cafpi SA, Aviva assurances SA v Enedis SA

(Case C-691/21)

(2022/C 64/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Cafpi SA, Aviva assurances SA

Respondent: Enedis SA

Question referred

Are Articles 2 and 3(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an electricity distribution system operator may be regarded as a ‘producer’ if it alters the voltage of the electricity from the supplier so that it may be distributed to the final consumer?

(1) OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/18

Appeal brought on 19 November 2021 by Laboratoire Pareva against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Joined Cases T-337/18 and T-347/18, Laboratoire Pareva and Biotech3D v Commission

(Case C-702/21 P)

(2022/C 64/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Laboratoire Pareva (represented by: P. Sellar, K. Van Maldegem, advocaten, M. Grunchard, S. Englebert, M. Ombredane, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Biotech3D Ltd & Co. KG, European Commission, French Republic, European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

—	order a measure of inquiry under Article 64(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for production of a written transcript of the oral hearing held before the General Court;

—	set aside the judgment under appeal, and

—	annul the contested acts and award the costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court to the Appellant or award the costs of this appeal to the Appellant and refer the cases back to the General Court for re-consideration.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court failed to raise ex officio the lack of an adequate statement of reasons.

The General Court erred in law by failing in its duty to raise ex officio a plea pertaining to the adequacy of the statement of reasons in the contested acts and thus to assess such point of law. The General Court concluded that ‘the teratogenic effect, and not the subacute toxicity by inhalation, is the decisive factor for the assessment of the unacceptable risks for human health posed by Pareva’s PHMB’ (paragraph 133) in spite of the fact that there is no reference to that factor in the statement of reasons pertaining to the contested acts. In accordance with the settled case law of the Court, the General Court had a duty to consider and conclude on whether the contested acts were vitiated by a failure of the Defendant to provide an adequate statement of reasons by reference to the alleged teratogenicity factor as required by Article 296 TFEU.

The General Court distorted the clear sense of the facts

The General Court distorted the clear sense of the facts by holding that the substance at issue is teratogenic and that the Appellant did not contest that the teratogenicity effect was the decisive human health factor in the adoption of the contested acts. That conclusion manifestly distorted the facts on record before the General Court and the statements made at the oral hearing, which consequently led to a distortion of the General Court’s assessment of the lawfulness of the contested acts.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 23 November 2021 — MJ v AxFina Hungary Zrt.

(Case C-705/21)

(2022/C 64/30)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: MJ

Respondent: AxFina Hungary Zrt.

Questions referred

Do Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts preclude an interpretation of national law to the effect that the legal consequences of invalidity derived from an unfair term in a consumer contract, where the unfair term relates to the principal subject of the transaction and, as a result, the (loan) contract cannot continue to exist without the term considered to be unfair, are that, after it has declared that the contract as a whole is invalid — in other words, that the contract as a whole cannot (1) continue in existence and cannot create binding legal effects for the consumer — the national court

(a)

declares that the contract is valid and in so doing converts into Hungarian forints the account currency of the loan granted, which constitutes the main subject matter of the contract, and replaces that sum denominated in the account currency with the amount in forints that the consumer has effectively received from the lender, and at the same time calculates (replaces) the ordinary interest on the principal amount so determined in a different manner from the method that was used to calculate that interest in the contract declared invalid, such that the ‘initial’ interest rate at the time when the contract was concluded is equal to the value of the Budapest interbank lending rate in forints (BUBOR), used as a reference rate, which was in force at the time when the contract was concluded, plus the interest rate differential set in the original contract (denominated in foreign currency),

(b)

declares that the contract is valid and in so doing sets a ceiling on the conversion rate between the foreign currency and the Hungarian forint, in other words, reduces the exchange rate risk actually assumed by the consumer as a result of the unfair term in the contract to a level which the court considers reasonable and which the consumer may have taken into consideration when the contract was concluded, leaving the interest rate set in the contract unchanged until the date of the mandatory conversion into forints stipulated by a subsequent law?

For the purposes of answering question 1, is it significant that the declaration of validity which is made under Hungarian law

(a)

is made in a factual situation in which a contract between the parties still exists, in other words, in which the continuation of the contract is intended to enable the legal relationship between the parties to continue to exist in the future by means of a retroactive correction of the terms considered to be unfair — while also recalculating, by means of the amended terms, the performance carried out up to that point — and thereby also protects the consumer from the particularly harmful effects of an obligation to repay the total amount immediately;

(b)

or is made in a factual situation in which the contract between the parties to be examined in the proceedings relating to an unfair contract term no longer exists — because the contract has expired, because the creditor terminated the contract early on the ground of non-payment of instalments or on the ground that the amount paid is insufficient, or, in any event, because the real situation is that neither party considers the contract to be valid or because the issue of the invalidity of the contract can no longer be raised on account of a previous judicial decision — in other words, a situation in which the declaration of validity of the contract with retroactive effect does not serve to keep the contract in existence in the interests of the consumer but rather to enable the discharge of mutual obligations and the termination of the legal relationship by means of correction of the term(s) declared unfair?

In the event of an affirmative reply to question 1(a) or (b), and taking account also of the matters set out in question 2, do the relevant provisions of Directive 93/13/EEC preclude, in the factual situation described in question 2(a), the continued existence of the contract, effected through substitution of the unfair term, until the date of the amendment laid down by the legislature in the Law on conversion into forints, by means of national statutory provisions pursuant to which:

—	unless otherwise provided (which is not the case in the present instance), monetary debts must be paid in the legal tender of the place of performance of the obligation;

—	interest is chargeable in contractual relationships, subject to the exception laid down by the provision;

—	the interest rate is to be equal to the central bank base rate, subject to the exception laid down in the provision.

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29, Special edition in Hungarian Chapter 15 Volume 002 P. 288.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 24 November 2021 — Recamier SA v BR

(Case C-707/21)

(2022/C 64/31)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Recamier SA

Respondent: BR

Questions referred

Is Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) (‘Brussels I’) to be interpreted as meaning that the autonomous definition of res judicata covers all the conditions and effects of res judicata or that certain conditions and effects may be determined by the law of the court seised and/or the law of the court which gave the decision?

2.	In the first scenario, are applications made before the courts of two Member States to be regarded, in the light of the autonomous definition of res judicata, as having the same cause of action where the applicant pleads identical facts but relies on different pleas in law?

3.	Are two applications, one founded in contractual liability and the other in liability in tort, but based on the same legal relationship, such as the performance of duties as a director, to be regarded as having the same cause of action?

In the second scenario, does Article 33(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, pursuant to which it has been held that a judicial decision must move within the Member States with the same scope and the same effects as it has in the Member State in which it was given, require that reference is made to the law of the court of origin or does it allow, with regard to the procedural consequences attached to it, the law of the court in which enforcement is sought to be applied?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 25 November 2021 — XXX v État belge, represented by the Secrétaire d’État à l’Asile et la Migration

(Case C-711/21)

(2022/C 64/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XXX

Defendant: État belge, represented by the Secrétaire d’État à l’Asile et la Migration

Questions referred

Must Articles 4, 7 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 5, [6(6)] and 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, (1) read in the light of the judgment [of 19 June 2018, Gnandi (C-181/16, EU:C:2018:465)], be interpreted as meaning that a court hearing an appeal against a return decision adopted pursuant to a decision refusing to grant international protection, when assessing the legality of the return decision, may take account of changes in circumstances that may have a significant bearing on the assessment of the situation under Article 5 cited above, only where those changes occurred prior to the disposal of the international protection proceedings by the Council for asylum and immigration proceedings?

Must the circumstances referred to in Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals have arisen at a time when the foreign national was legally resident or allowed to remain?

(1) OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 25 November 2021 — XXX v État belge, represented by the Secrétaire d’État à l’Asile et la Migration

(Case C-712/21)

(2022/C 64/33)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XXX

Defendant: État belge, represented by the Secrétaire d’État à l’Asile et la Migration

Questions referred

Must Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 5, [6(6)] and 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, (1) read in the light of the judgment [of 19 June 2018, Gnandi (C-181/16, EU:C:2018:465)], be interpreted as meaning that a court hearing an appeal against a return decision adopted pursuant to a decision refusing to grant international protection, when assessing the legality of the return decision, may take account of changes in circumstances that may have a significant bearing on the assessment of the situation under Article 5 cited above, only where those changes occurred prior to the disposal of the international protection proceedings by the Council for asylum and immigration proceedings?

(1) OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/22

Appeal brought on 25 November 2021 by Frédéric Jouvin against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2021 in Cases T-472/20 and T-472/20 AJ II, Jouvin v Commission

(Case C-719/21 P)

(2022/C 64/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Frédéric Jouvin (represented by: L. Bôle-Richard, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	Set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 April 2021 in Cases T-472/20 and T-472/20 AJ II, Jouvin v Commission, in so far as it dismissed the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

—	Grant the forms of order sought at first instance and refer the matter back to the Commission;

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds.

The first ground of appeal alleges a manifestly incorrect characterisation of the facts presented for the assessment of the General Court, an error by the General Court in the finding of the content of proof and an error of law regarding the level of proof required. According to the appellant, the General Court erred in law making an incorrect legal characterisation of the facts brought for its determination. The General Court points out that the very significant number of counterfeiters does not call into question the finding made by the Commission as regards the absence of proof of collusion among the undertakings that are the subject of the appellant’s complaint. As it is, the finding of the significant and exponential number of counterfeiters is not intended to demonstrate the existence of collusion, but appears to be a consequence of the latter.

The proof of that collusion was adduced by the appellant who demonstrated that the undertakings participating in standardisation work had been contacted beforehand in order to be granted licences on his patent portfolio. Following the failure of the negotiations, all of the contacted undertakings took part in standardisation work at the ISO and none of them complied with its obligations of stating the knowledge of all patents that could be linked to the standard being drawn up. Those factors make up the collusion infringement that led to the exponential increase in the number of counterfeiters.

The appellant also relies on the ground of appeal alleging an error in law in relation to the level of proof required by the Commission and then by the General Court in its order to demonstrate the existence of collusion between the undertakings referred to.

The second ground of appeal alleges the failure to consider the facts brought to the knowledge of the General Court. According to the appellant, the General Court held that the arguments of the appellant regarding market sharing were not raised during the administrative procedure. However, the appellant raised that argument during the administrative procedure, in a letter of 15 May 2018 addressed to the Commission, more than two years before the final decision of the Commission rejecting the appellant’s complaint. Therefore, the General Court erred in law by failing to determine the actual content of proof brought to its knowledge.

Lastly, the third ground of appeal alleges an error of law of the General Court in the finding of the content of proof. The General Court considers that the appellant requests it, in essence, to find an infringement of the competition rules. However, the appellant submits that the Commission, in assessing the proper weight of the matters brought to its attention during the administrative procedure, should necessarily have found collusion between the undertakings referred to by the complaint and consequently an infringement of the competition rules.

As to the finding of discrimination suffered by the appellant, the appellant, in his application, merely expanded on the arguments already submitted during the administrative procedure and explained the manifest error of assessment committed by the Commission by not taking into consideration the facts adduced by the appellant. By maintaining that the appellant did not provide any argument referring to the manifestly contested decision, the General Court breached its obligation to state reasons while all the arguments of the appellant sought, however, to demonstrate the manifest error of assessment committed by the Commission.

As to the characterisation of collusion, the appellant also criticises the Commission for a manifest error of assessment. The appellant by no means sought a direct finding of an infringement of the competition rules from the General Court, but rather that it hold that the analysis of facts brought to the knowledge of the Commission should have led the Commission undisputedly to find itself an infringement of the competition rules and a clear infringement of its own recommendations.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski sud u Puli-Pola (Croatia) lodged on 30 November 2021 — Criminal proceedings against GR, HS, IT, INTER CONSULTING d.o.o., in liquidation

(Case C-726/21)

(2022/C 64/35)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Županijski sud u Puli-Pola

Parties to the main proceedings

GR, HS, IT, INTER CONSULTING d.o.o., in liquidation

Question referred

In assessing whether there has been an infringement of the ne bis in idem principle, is it possible to compare only the facts cited in the enacting terms of the indictment of the Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Puli-Pola (Pula Public Prosecutor’s Office, Croatia) of 28 September 2015 with the key facts cited in the enacting terms of the indictment of the Staatsanwaltschaft Klagenfurt (Klagenfurt Public Prosecutor’s Office, Austria) of 9 January 2015, and in the operative part of the judgment of the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Klagenfurt Regional Court) of 3 November 2016, upheld by judgment of the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court of the Republic of Austria) of 4 March 2019, or is it possible to compare the facts cited in the enacting terms of the indictment of the Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Puli-Pola (Pula Public Prosecutor’s Office) with the facts cited in the grounds of the judgment of the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Klagenfurt Regional Court) of 3 November 2016, upheld by judgment of the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court of the Republic of Austria), and which were the subject of the preliminary investigation conducted by the Staatsanwaltschaft Klagenfurt (Klagenfurt Public Prosecutor’s Office) against several persons, in particular against GR and HS, and which were subsequently omitted from the indictment by the Staatsanwaltschaft Klagenfurt (Klagenfurt Public Prosecutor’s Office) of 9 January 2015 (and were not cited in those enacting terms)?

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/24

Appeal brought on 30 November 2021 by Coopérative des artisans pêcheurs associés (CAPA), Jean Derosière, Fabien Hagneré and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Case T-777/19 CAPA and Others v Commission

(Case C-741/21 P)

(2022/C 64/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Coopérative des artisans pêcheurs associés (CAPA), Jean Derosière, Fabien Hagneré and Others (represented by: M. Le Berre, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comité régional des pêches maritimes et des élevages marins Hauts-de-France, Fonds régional d’organisation du marché du poisson (From Nord), Organisation de producteurs CME Manche-Mer du Nord (OP CME Manche-Mer du Nord), French Republic, Ailes Marines SAS, Éoliennes Offshore des Hautes Falaises, Éoliennes Offshore du Calvados, Parc du Banc de Guérande, Éoliennes en Mer Dieppe Le Tréport, Éoliennes en Mer Îles d’Yeu et de Noirmoutier, Herviou & Associés SARL

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	declare that the appeal is admissible and well founded;

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2021 in Case T-777/19, CAPA and Others v European Commission;

—	declare that the application lodged before the General Court is admissible;

—	refer the case back to the General Court;

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on six grounds of appeal.

The first ground of appeal alleges failure to carry out an effective judicial review. According to the appellants, the General Court failed to exercise fully its judicial powers when it did not examine whether the aid at issue would be likely to have a specific effect on the appellants.

The second ground of appeal alleges inaccurate findings and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence. According to the appellants, the General Court made inaccurate findings in respect of some of the evidence submitted by the appellants and it distorted the clear sense of some other items of evidence also submitted by the appellants, regarding, inter alia, the effect of the aid at issue on the appellants’ activities.

The third ground of appeal alleges errors in the characterisation of the facts. According to the appellants, the judgment under appeal contains errors in the characterisation of the facts, establishing a distinction between some effects of the aid at issue and finding that some of those effects were separable from the aid at issue.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges incorrect application of Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 1(h) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. (1) According to the appellants, the judgment under appeal applies incorrectly the concept of ‘interested party’ for the purposes of those provisions, both as regards the existence of a competitive relationship between the appellants and the beneficiaries of the aid at issue and as regards whether the aid at issue would be likely to have a specific effect on the appellants.

The fifth ground of appeal alleges incorrect application of Article 39 TFEU. According to the appellants, the judgment under appeal applies Article 39 TFEU incorrectly to the question whether the appellants have the status of interested party.

Last, the sixth ground of appeal alleges failure to state reasons in so far as the judgment under appeal fails to have regard to the obligation to state reasons, inter alia, by not substantiating the appellants’ exclusion from the status of interested party, by its finding that there is no connection between the aid at issue and the likelihood of the effect on the beneficiary wind energy projects and by the fact that the ‘particular nature’ of fishing activities within the meaning of Article 39 TFEU was not taken into account in the examination of whether the appellants have the status of ‘interested party’.

(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 (codification) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/25

Appeal brought on 9 December 2021 by Nichicon Corporation against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-342/18, Nichicon Corporation v Commission

(Case C-757/21 P)

(2022/C 64/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Nichicon Corporation (represented by: A. Ablasser-Neuhuber, F. Neumayr, G. Fussenegger, H. Kühnert, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment under appeal and annul the Commission decision C(2018) 1768 final of 21 March 2018 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40136 Capacitors, ‘decision at issue’) insofar as it concerns the Appellant;

—

in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court rejected

—	the first plea in law regarding material errors of fact concerning the meetings of ‘18 December 1998’, ‘April/May 2005’, ‘February 2009’, ‘July 2009’, ‘9 March 2010’ and ‘31 May 2010’ in order to establish the Appellant’s participation in an infringement of EU competition law;

—	the second part of the second plea in law, relating to the Appellant's lack of liability for bilateral and trilateral contacts between the other undertakings concerned;

—	the third part of the second plea in law, relating to the lack of participation in a single and continuous infringement before 7 November 2003;

—	the fourth plea in law concerning manifest errors of assessment in the determination of the fine;

and consequently, partially annul the decision at issue and reduce the fine of EUR 72 901 000 imposed on the Appellant to a proportionate amount;

—	in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration, and

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In essence, the Appellant relies on 4 pleas in law.

First plea in law: infringement of an essential procedural requirement due to missing authentication of the judgment under appeal

The judgment under appeal, was not signed by hand by the responsible judges. It therefore lacks the necessary authentication. The missing signatures must be assessed as an essential procedural requirement was infringed. The judgment under appeal must be therefore annulled.

Second plea in law: errors in reviewing the Commission's findings of fact

The General Court's analysis of the pleas raised by the Appellant at first instance is vitiated by distortions of evidence, errors of law, and insufficient reasoning.

Third plea in Law: errors of law in reviewing the Commission's findings regarding the existence of and the Appellant's liability for participation in a single and continuous infringement

First, the General Court provided insufficient reasons for and erred in law in rejecting the plea that the Commission had not established the Appellant's liability for bilateral and trilateral meetings between other undertakings concerned to the requisite legal standard. Secondly, the General Court erred in law in rejecting the Appellant's plea that the Commission had failed to establish a continuous infringement.

Fourth plea in Law: manifest errors of assessment in setting the fine

First, the General Court errs in law by taking as a basis the value of sales invoiced to the EEA instead of the value of sales shipped / consigned to the EEA. Furthermore, by determining the gravity multiplier with 16 %, the General Court sets an insufficient legal standard by not taking account of the individual circumstances of the Appellant. Secondly, the General Court insufficiently considered mitigating factors in terms of the absolute amount of the fine imposed on the Appellant being disproportionate. The General Court hereby, inter alia, infringes the principle of proportionality and equal treatment by failing to duly reflect the Applicant’s limited participation. Further, the General Court errs in law by rejecting to accept the Appellant’s negligence and competitive conduct as mitigating factors.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/26

Appeal brought on 10 December 2021 by Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-363/18, Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation v Commission

(Case C-759/21 P)

(2022/C 64/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer, M. Röhrig, P. Neideck, Rechtsanwälte, I.-L. Stoicescu, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment under appeal and annul the European Commission's decision of 21 March 2018 (1) relating to a proceeding under Art. 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.40136 — Capacitors) in so far as the Appellant is concerned;

—	in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it upholds the fine imposed on the Appellant and annul Art. 2 (j) of the European Commission’s decision of 21 March 2018;

—	in the subsequent alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the Appellant in the light of the grounds of appeal upheld, and

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First Plea: The absence of judges' signatures on the General Court judgment

In the absence of the three judges' signatures, the judgment is invalid in its entirety, as stated in Art. 118 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and Art. 37 of the General Court Statute.

2. Second Plea: Infringement of Article 101 TFEU (§ § 143-307 of the judgment)

The General Court erred in its application of Art. 101 TFEU when it confirmed the European Commission's finding of an infringement. The GC failed to properly assess the relevance of the alleged infringement for the EEA. It misapplied the body of evidence doctrine and reversed the burden of proof to the detriment of the Appellant, violating the presumption of innocence.

3. Third Plea: Single and Continuous Infringement (§ § 308-400 of the judgment)

The General Court erred in its application of Art. 101 TFEU when it concluded that there was a single and continuous infringement covering all electrolytic capacitors from 26 June 1998 to 23 April 2012. The General Court applied an incorrect legal standard for the test whether there was an overall plan, which is a constituting requirement for a single and continuous infringement. Furthermore, even if the legal test is accepted, the facts established by the GC do not allow to assume a continuous, i.e. uninterrupted, infringement.

4. Fourth Plea: Infringement by Object (§ § 401-429 of the judgment)

The General Court erred in its application of Art. 101 TFEU when it confirmed the European Commission's view, according to which the entire infringement must be qualified as a by object infringement. The General Court provided an insufficient reasoning for its finding and applied an incorrect legal standard for the assessment of the exchanged information.

5. Fifth Plea: Jurisdiction (§ § 71-83 of the judgment)

The General Court erred when it confirmed that the European Commission had territorial jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 101 TFEU and Art. 53, 56 of the EEA Agreement to sanction the entire infringement. The General Court should have applied a materiality threshold for establishing jurisdiction, rather than just resorting to a ‘mere sale [of electrolytic capacitors] within the European Union’ and, in any event, provided a sufficient reasoning for its finding.

6. Sixth Plea: Calculation of Fine (§ § 430-526 of the judgment)

The General Court failed to correctly apply the principle of proportionality and infringed a number of procedural requirements, namely the obligations to state reasons and to conduct a complete assessment of the evidence and a complete examination of the facts, when assessing the evidence that the Appellant submitted to the European Commission.

(1) Commission Decision C(2018) 1768 final.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/29

Action brought on 26 November 2021 — EMS Electro Medical Systems v EUIPO (AIRFLOW)

(Case T-751/21)

(2022/C 64/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EMS Electro Medical Systems GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Scheib and C. Schulte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark AIRFLOW — Application for registration No 1 533 193

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2021 in Case R 546/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EMS Electro Medical Systems GmbH.

Pleas in law

—	Incorrect interpretation of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Incorrect interpretation of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/29

Action brought on 8 December 2021 — C&C IP UK v EUIPO — Tipico Group (t)

(Case T-762/21)

(2022/C 64/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: C&C IP UK Ltd (Bristol, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tipico Group ltd. (St. Julian’s, Malta)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark t — Application for registration No 17 915 463

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2021 in Case R 2326/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	dismiss the appeal brought by the Tipico Group Ltd. against the decision of the EUIPO’s Opposition Division of 19 October 2020 in Case B 3 080 138;

—	order EUIPO, and Tipico Group Ltd. if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/30

Action brought on 9 December 2021 — Daw v EUIPO — Sapa Building Systems (alpina)

(Case T-766/21)

(2022/C 64/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sapa Building Systems SpA (Naviglio, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark alpina — Application for registration No 15 123 342

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2021 in Case R 2198/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order Sapa Building Systems SpA to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 33(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

7.2.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/31

Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Gameageventures v EUIPO (GAME TOURNAMENTS)

(Case T-776/21)

(2022/C 64/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gameageventures LLP (Folkestone, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Santos Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark GAME TOURNAMENTS– Application for registration No 18 207 605

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2021 in Case R 211/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of the obligation to state reason and of the right to be heard;

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

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

—	Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of sound administration.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 64

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 65 7 February 2022

Contents		page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2022/C 64/01	Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union	1

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	Court of Justice
2022/C 64/02	Case C-375/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra — Portugal) — Liberty Seguros, Compañia de Seguros y Reaseguros, SA — Sucursal em Portugal, formerly Liberty Seguros SA v DR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Obligatory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — Insurance contract concluded on the basis of false statements — International transport of persons and goods without authorisation — Nullity of the insurance contract — Invoking that nullity against third-party victims and the body responsible for compensating victims)	2
2022/C 64/03	Case C-583/20: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — EuroChem Agro Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 273 — Fight against fraud — Declaration obligation relating to the transport of goods — Road freight electronic monitoring system — Penalty regime applicable to high-risk taxpayers — Proportionality)	3
2022/C 64/04	Case C-691/20: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto Este — Penafiel — Juízo Trabalho — Portugal) — B v O, P, OP, G, N (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU law — Principles — Article 18 TFEU — Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Prohibition — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Joint and several liability of companies which form part of a group for debts resulting from an employment contract entered into by one of those companies — Exclusion by the legislation of the Member State concerned of companies that have their seat in another Member State)	3
2022/C 64/05	Case C-87/21: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — NSV, NM v BT (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Scope — Article 1(2) — Contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions — Credit agreements denominated in a foreign currency — Terms relating to the exchange rate risk which reproduce a supplementary provision of national law — Alleged failure to fulfil the obligation of information borne by the banking institution providing the loan — Requirement of good faith — Examination to be carried out by the national court as a matter of priority in the light of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13)	4
2022/C 64/06	Case C-316/21: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — Monument Vandekerckhove NV v Stad Gent (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 2014/24/EU — Conduct of the procedure — Choice of participants and award of contracts — Article 63 — Tenderer relying on the capacities of another entity in order to meet the requirements of the contracting authority — Failure to meet the requirements relating to the technical and professional ability of the tenderer by the entity on whose capacities the tenderer intends to rely — Obligation to allow that tenderer to replace that entity — Principle of proportionality)	5
2022/C 64/07	Case C-193/21 P: Appeal brought on 25 March 2021 by RY against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2021 in Case T-824/19, RY v Commission	5
2022/C 64/08	Case C-382/21 P: Appeal brought on 23 June 2021 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) against the judgment delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-579/19, The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	6
2022/C 64/09	Case C-387/21 P: Appeal brought on 23 June 2021 by Asolo LTD and WeMO Brands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2021 in Case T-509/19, Asolo v EUIPO	7
2022/C 64/10	Case C-473/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2021 in Case T-854/19, Franz Schröder v EUIPO	7
2022/C 64/11	Case C-474/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2021 in Case T-855/19, Franz Schröder v EUIPO	7
2022/C 64/12	Case C-475/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2021 in Case T-856/19, Franz Schröder v EUIPO	8
2022/C 64/13	Case C-520/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 24 August 2021 — A.S. v Bank M. SA	8
2022/C 64/14	Case C-523/21 P: Appeal brought on 24 August 2021 by Innovative Cosmetic Concepts LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-196/20, Chanel v EUIPO — Innovative Cosmetic Concepts (INCOCO)	9
2022/C 64/15	Case C-537/21 P: Appeal brought on 25 August 2021 by PL against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-586/19, PL v Commission	9
2022/C 64/16	Case C-582/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy Warszawa-Praga w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 17 September 2021 — FY v Profi Credit Polska S.A.	10
2022/C 64/17	Case C-589/21 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2021 by Abitron Germany GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2021 in Case T-75/20, Abitron Germany GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office	11
2022/C 64/18	Case C-619/21 P: Appeal brought on 1 October 2021 by Cora against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2021 in Case T-500/19, Coravin v EUIPO — Cora (CORAVIN)	11
2022/C 64/19	Case C-632/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n.o 2 de Granadilla de Abona (Spain) lodged on 14 October 2021 — JF and NS v Diamond Resorts Europe Limited (Sucursal en España), Diamond Resorts Spanish Sales S.L. and Sunterra Tenerife Sales S.L.	12
2022/C 64/20	Case C-635/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 15 October 2021 — LB GmbH v Hauptzollamt D	13
2022/C 64/21	Case C-640/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 19 October 2021 — SC Zes Zollner Electronic SRL v Direcția Regională Vamală Cluj — Biroul Vamal de Frontieră Aeroport Cluj Napoca	13
2022/C 64/22	Case C-654/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 28 October 2021 — LM v KP	14
2022/C 64/23	Case C-664/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 5 November 2021 — NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS AG v Republic of Slovenia	14
2022/C 64/24	Case C-669/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível da Póvoa de Varzim (Portugal) lodged on 9 November 2021 — Gencoal S.A. v Conceito Norte — Consultadoria de Gestão, Lda., BT	15
2022/C 64/25	Case C-670/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 November 2021 — BA v Finanzamt X	16
2022/C 64/26	Case C-687/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hagen (Germany) lodged on 16 November 2021 — BL v Saturn Electro-Handelsgesellschaft mbH Hagen	16
2022/C 64/27	Case C-689/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 16 November 2021 — X v Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet	17
2022/C 64/28	Case C-691/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 18 November 2021 — Cafpi SA, Aviva assurances SA v Enedis SA	18
2022/C 64/29	Case C-702/21 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2021 by Laboratoire Pareva against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Joined Cases T-337/18 and T-347/18, Laboratoire Pareva and Biotech3D v Commission	18
2022/C 64/30	Case C-705/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 23 November 2021 — MJ v AxFina Hungary Zrt.	19
2022/C 64/31	Case C-707/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 24 November 2021 — Recamier SA v BR	20
2022/C 64/32	Case C-711/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 25 November 2021 — XXX v État belge, represented by the Secrétaire d’État à l’Asile et la Migration	21
2022/C 64/33	Case C-712/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 25 November 2021 — XXX v État belge, represented by the Secrétaire d’État à l’Asile et la Migration	21
2022/C 64/34	Case C-719/21 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2021 by Frédéric Jouvin against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2021 in Cases T-472/20 and T-472/20 AJ II, Jouvin v Commission	22
2022/C 64/35	Case C-726/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski sud u Puli-Pola (Croatia) lodged on 30 November 2021 — Criminal proceedings against GR, HS, IT, INTER CONSULTING d.o.o., in liquidation	23
2022/C 64/36	Case C-741/21 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2021 by Coopérative des artisans pêcheurs associés (CAPA), Jean Derosière, Fabien Hagneré and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Case T-777/19 CAPA and Others v Commission	24
2022/C 64/37	Case C-757/21 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2021 by Nichicon Corporation against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-342/18, Nichicon Corporation v Commission	25
2022/C 64/38	Case C-759/21 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2021 by Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-363/18, Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation v Commission	26
2022/C 64/39	Case C-366/19: Order of the President of the Court of 26 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — BOSOLAR EOOD v CHEZ ELEKTRO BULGARIA AD, intervening party: NATSIONALNA ELEKTRICHESKA KOMPANIA EAD	28
2022/C 64/40	Case C-136/21: Order of the President of the Court of 26 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Constitucional — Portugal) — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v VectorImpacto — Automóveis Unipessoal Lda	28
	General Court
2022/C 64/41	Case T-751/21: Action brought on 26 November 2021 — EMS Electro Medical Systems v EUIPO (AIRFLOW)	29
2022/C 64/42	Case T-762/21: Action brought on 8 December 2021 — C&C IP UK v EUIPO — Tipico Group (t)	29
2022/C 64/43	Case T-766/21: Action brought on 9 December 2021 — Daw v EUIPO — Sapa Building Systems (alpina)	30
2022/C 64/44	Case T-776/21: Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Gameageventures v EUIPO (GAME TOURNAMENTS)	31