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

(2022/C 198/01)

Last publication

OJ C 191, 10.5.2022

Past publications

OJ C 171, 25.4.2022

OJ C 165, 19.4.2022

OJ C 158, 11.4.2022

OJ C 148, 4.4.2022

OJ C 138, 28.3.2022

OJ C 128, 21.3.2022

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 March 2022 — PJ v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (C-529/18 P), PC v PJ, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (C-531/18 P)

(Joined Cases C-529/18 P and C-531/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Principles of EU law - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation of parties in direct actions before the Courts of the European Union - Lawyer representing the applicant as a third party - Requirement of independence - Lawyer working as an associate in a law firm - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2022/C 198/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

(Case C-529/18 P)

Appellant: PJ (represented by: J. Lipinsky and C. von Donat, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and A. Söder, agents), Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwälte)

(Case C-531/18 P)

Appellant: PC (represented by: J. Lipinsky and C. von Donat, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: PJ (represented by: J. Lipinsky and C. von Donat, Rechtsanwälte), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and A. Söder, agents), Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeals;

2.	Orders PJ to pay the costs incurred in Case C-529/18 P in both the present appeal and the proceedings before the General Court;

3.	Orders PC is to pay the costs incurred in Case C-531/18 P in both the present appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — M.F. v J.M.

(Case C-508/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Interpretation sought by the referring court necessary to enable it to give judgment - Concept - Disciplinary proceedings brought against a judge of an ordinary court - Designation of the disciplinary court having jurisdiction to hear those proceedings by the President of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) - Civil action for a declaration that a service relationship does not exist between the President of that disciplinary chamber and the Supreme Court - Lack of jurisdiction of the referring court to review the validity of the appointment of a Supreme Court judge and inadmissibility of such an action under national law - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2022/C 198/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.F.

Defendant: J.M.

Intervening party: Prokurator Generalny, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Izba Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) (Supreme Court (Labour and Social Insurance Chamber), Poland) is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — bpost SA v Autorité belge de la concurrence

(Case C-117/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Postal services - Tariff system adopted by a universal service provider - Fine imposed by a national postal regulator - Fine imposed by a national competition authority - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Non bis in idem principle - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the non bis in idem principle - Duplication of proceedings and penalties - Conditions - Pursuit of an objective of general interest - Proportionality)

(2022/C 198/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: bpost SA

Defendant: Autorité belge de la concurrence

Intervening parties: Publimail SA, European Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 52(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding a legal person from being fined for an infringement of EU competition law where, on the same facts, that person has already been the subject of a final decision following proceedings relating to an infringement of sectoral rules concerning the liberalisation of the relevant market, provided that there are clear and precise rules making it possible to predict which acts or omissions are liable to be subject to a duplication of proceedings and penalties, and also to predict that there will be coordination between the two competent authorities; that the two sets of proceedings have been conducted in a sufficiently coordinated manner within a proximate timeframe; and that the overall penalties imposed correspond to the seriousness of the offences committed.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Nordzucker AG, Südzucker AG, Agrana Zucker GmbH

(Case C-151/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Cartel prosecuted by two national competition authorities - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Non bis in idem principle - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the non bis in idem principle - Conditions - Pursuit of an objective of general interest - Proportionality)

(2022/C 198/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde

Defendants: Nordzucker AG, Südzucker AG, Agrana Zucker GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding an undertaking from having proceedings brought against it by the competition authority of a Member State and, as the case may be, fined for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and the corresponding provisions of the national competition law, on the basis of conduct which has had an anticompetitive object or effect in the territory of that Member State, even though that conduct has already been referred to by a competition authority of another Member State, in a final decision adopted by that authority in respect of that undertaking following infringement proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and the corresponding provisions of the competition law of that other Member State, provided that that decision is not based on a finding of an anticompetitive object or effect in the territory of the first Member State.

2.

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that proceedings for the enforcement of competition law, in which, owing to the participation of the party concerned in the national leniency programme, only a declaration of the infringement of that law can be made, are liable to be covered by the non bis in idem principle.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland — Netherlands) — X, Z v Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens

(Case C-245/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Competence of the supervisory authority - Article 55(3) - Processing operations of courts acting in their judicial capacity - Concept - Making available to a journalist of documents arising from court proceedings containing personal data)

(2022/C 198/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Midden-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X, Z

Defendant: Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens

Operative part of the judgment

Article 55(3) of 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) must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a court makes temporarily available to journalists documents from court proceedings containing personal data in order to enable them better to report on the course of those proceedings falls within the exercise, by that court, of its ‘judicial capacity’, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH v Strato AG

(Case C-433/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 2 - Reproduction - Article 5(2)(b) - Private copying exception - Concept of ‘any medium’ - Servers owned by third parties made available to natural persons for private use - Fair compensation - National legislation that does not make the providers of cloud computing services subject to the private copying levy)

(2022/C 198/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Strato AG

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘reproductions on any medium’, referred to in that provision, covers the saving, for private purposes, of copies of works protected by copyright on a server in which storage space is made available to a user by the provider of a cloud computing service.

2.

Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that has transposed the exception referred to in that provision and that does not make the providers of storage services in the context of cloud computing subject to the payment of fair compensation in respect of the unauthorised saving of copies of copyright-protected works by natural persons, who are users of those services, for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial, in so far as that legislation provides for the payment of fair compensation to the rightholders.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Somogy Megyei Kormányhivatal v Upfield Hungary Kft.

(Case C-533/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Provision of food information to consumers - Labelling - Mandatory particulars - List of ingredients - Specific name of those ingredients - Addition of a vitamin to a food - Obligation to indicate the specific name of that vitamin - No obligation to indicate the vitamin formulation used)

(2022/C 198/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Somogy Megyei Kormányhivatal

Defendant: Upfield Hungary Kft.

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, must be interpreted, having regard specifically to Article 18(2), as meaning that, where a vitamin has been added to a food, the list of the ingredients of that food does not have to include, in addition to the name of that vitamin, the name of the vitamin formulation used.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 March 2022 — Hermann Albers eK v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Land Niedersachsen (Germany)

(Case C-656/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Concept of ‘aid’ - Public transport of passengers - Offsetting of costs involved in the performance of public service obligations - Transfer of financial resources between public authorities - Obligation for municipal authorities that organise transport to guarantee reduced tariffs for students and apprentices - Lack of an advantage granted by the State to an undertaking - Obligation to notify)

(2022/C 198/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Hermann Albers eK (represented by: S. Roling, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and K. Blanck, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany, Land Niedersachsen (Germany) (represented by: S. Barth and H. Gading, Rechtsanwältinen)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Hermann Albers eK to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders Land Niedersachsen (Germany) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 March 2022 — Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen eV (GVN) v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Land Niedersachsen (Germany)

(Case C-666/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Concept of ‘aid’ - Public passenger transport - Compensating the costs related to the performance of public service obligations - Transfer of financial resources between public authorities - Obligation for the municipal transport authorities to determine reduced tariffs for students and apprentices - No advantage granted by the State to an undertaking - Concept of ‘undertaking’)

(2022/C 198/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen eV (GVN) (represented by: C. Antweiler, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and K. Blanck, agents), Federal Republic of Germany, Land Niedersachsen (Germany) (represented by: S. Barth and H. Gading, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen eV (GVN) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders Land Niedersachsen (Germany) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — W.G. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w L.

(Case C-697/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9 - Taxable person - Articles 295 and 296 - Flat-rate scheme for farmers - Spouses engaged in an agricultural activity using property forming part of the marital community of property - Possibility for those spouses to be regarded as separate taxable persons for VAT purposes - Choice on the part of one of the spouses to give up flat-rate farmer status and to bring her activity under the normal VAT arrangements - Loss of flat-rate farmer status for the other spouse)

(2022/C 198/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: W.G.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w L.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 9, 295 and 296 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as:

—

precluding a practice of a Member State which prohibits spouses carrying out an agricultural activity in the same holding, using property forming part of the marital community of property, from being regarded as separate taxable persons for value added tax (VAT) purposes where each of those spouses carries out an economic activity independently;

—

not precluding, in circumstances in which spouses carry out that agricultural activity under the flat-rate scheme for farmers, the choice of one spouse to place her activity under the normal VAT arrangements from resulting in the other spouse losing the status of flat-rate farmer, where, after examination of the specific situation, such an effect is necessary in order to counter the risk of abuse and tax evasion which cannot be addressed by the spouses’ production of appropriate evidence, or where the carrying out of that activity by those spouses, independently and each under the normal VAT arrangements, is not likely to give rise to administrative difficulties, compared with a situation entailing the simultaneous existence of two different statuses for those spouses.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Generální ředitelství cel v TanQuid Polska Sp. z o. o.

(Case C-711/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Excise duties - Directive 92/12/EC - Article 4 - Movement of products under excise duty suspension - Conditions - Articles 6 and 20 - Release of products for consumption - Falsification of the accompanying administrative document - Offence or irregularity committed in the course of the movement of products subject to excise duty under a duty suspension arrangement - Irregular departure of products from a suspension arrangement - Consignee unaware of the movement - Fraud committed by a third party - Article 13(a) and Article 15(3) - Compulsory guarantee to cover movement - Scope)

(2022/C 198/12)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generální ředitelství cel

Defendant: TanQuid Polska Sp. z o. o.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that the dispatch, by an authorised warehousekeeper, of products subject to excise duty, under cover of an accompanying document and a compulsory guarantee, constitutes movement of products under excise duty suspension, within the meaning of Article 4(c) thereof, notwithstanding the fact that, as a result of fraudulent conduct on the part of third parties, the consignee indicated in that accompanying document and in that guarantee is unaware that those products have been dispatched to him or her, as long as that fact or another irregularity or infringement has not been established by the competent authorities of the Member State concerned.

The fact that the compulsory guarantee provided by the authorised warehousekeeper for the purpose of such dispatch specifies the name of the authorised consignee, but not his or her status as a registered trader, shall not affect the lawfulness of such movement.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Galapagos BidCo. Sàrl v DE, in its capacity as liquidator of Galapagos SA, Hauck Aufhäuser Fund Services SA, Prime Capital SA

(Case C-723/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) 2015/848 - Insolvency proceedings - Article 3(1) - International jurisdiction - Moving of the centre of a debtor’s main interests to another Member State after a request to open main insolvency proceedings has been lodged)

(2022/C 198/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Galapagos BidCo. Sàrl

Defendants: DE, in its capacity as liquidator of Galapagos SA, Hauck Aufhäuser Fund Services SA, Prime Capital SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Member State with which a request to open main insolvency proceedings has been lodged retains exclusive jurisdiction to open such proceedings where the centre of the debtor’s main interests is moved to another Member State after that request has been lodged, but before that court has delivered a decision on it. Consequently, in so far as that regulation is still applicable to that request, the court of another Member State with which another request is lodged subsequently for the same purpose cannot, in principle, declare that it has jurisdiction to open main insolvency proceedings until the first court has delivered its decision and declined jurisdiction.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — CT, Ferme de la Sarte SPRL v Région wallonne

(Case C-726/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy (CAP) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding - Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 - Article 17(1)(b) - Investment support concerning the processing, marketing and/or development of agricultural products covered by Annex I to the TFEU - Concept of ‘agricultural products’ - Concept of ‘live trees’ and ‘other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage’ - Turf rolls for the fitting-out of green roofs)

(2022/C 198/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CT, Ferme de la Sarte SPRL

Defendant: Région wallonne

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘agricultural products covered by Annex I to the TFEU’ in that provision covers plants used for making green roofs, such as turf rolls, so that tangible investments concerning them are eligible for aid under the rural development support measure referred to in that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-125/21) (1)

(Action for failure to fulfil obligations - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the framework decision - Failure to notify to the European Commission)

(2022/C 198/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Tomkin and S. Grünheid, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: M. Browne, M. Lane and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, and by M. Gray, Senior Counsel)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union and by failing to notify the text of such provisions to the European Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29(1) and (2) of that framework decision;

2.	Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-126/21) (1)

(Action for failure to fulfil obligations - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Mutual recognition of decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention - Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA - Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the framework decision - Failure to notify to the European Commission)

(2022/C 198/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Tomkin and S. Grünheid, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: M. Browne, M. Lane and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, and by M. Gray, Senior Counsel)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention and by failing to notify the text of such provisions to the European Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 of that framework decision;

2.	Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 — Lukáš Wagenknecht v European Commission

(Case C-130/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Combating fraud - Multiannual Financial Framework - Alleged conflict of interest of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic - Request to prevent the latter from meeting with the College of European Commissioners - Request to stop direct payments in the EU budget in favour of certain agri-food groups - Action for failure to act - Alleged failure to act by the European Commission - Composition of the General Court of the European Union - Alleged lack of impartiality - Application inadmissible - Definition of position - Locus standi - Interest in bringing proceedings)

(2022/C 198/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lukáš Wagenknecht (represented by: A. Koller, advokátka)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and M. Salyková, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Mr Lukáš Wagenknecht to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de grande instance de Rodez — France) — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v AN, CN

(Case C-82/20) (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 - Mortgage loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency (Swiss francs) - Article 4(2) - Main subject matter of the contract - Terms exposing the borrower to a foreign exchange risk - Requirements of intelligibility and transparency - Article 3(1) - Significant imbalance - Article 5 - Contractual term that is in plain, intelligible language)

(2022/C 198/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Rodez

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

Defendants: AN, CN

Intervener: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel du Languedoc

Operative part of the order

1.

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, the requirement of transparency of the terms of that agreement, which provide that the foreign currency is the account currency and the euro the settlement currency and which have the effect that the foreign exchange risk is borne by the borrower, is satisfied where the seller or supplier has provided the consumer with sufficient and accurate information to enable the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to understand the specific functioning of the financial mechanism in question and thus to evaluate the risk of potentially significant adverse economic consequences of such terms on his or her financial obligations throughout the term of the agreement.

2.

Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that terms of a loan agreement which provide that the foreign currency is the account currency and the euro the settlement currency and which have the effect of placing the foreign exchange risk on the borrower, without providing for an upper limit to that risk, are liable to cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under that agreement, to the detriment of the consumer, where the seller or supplier could not reasonably expect, in compliance with the requirement of transparency in relation to the consumer, that the consumer would have agreed to a disproportionate foreign exchange risk resulting from those terms, the mere finding, where appropriate, of the absence of good faith of the seller or supplier not being sufficient for the purposes of characterising such an imbalance.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 14.2.2020.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 March 2022 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IP, DD, ZI, SS, HYA

(Case C-609/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 4(3) TEU - Article 267 TFEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47, second paragraph - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Content of a request for a preliminary ruling - National rule providing for the national criminal court to decline jurisdiction on the basis that it expressed a view on the facts of the case in the request for a preliminary ruling on pain of annulment of the decision to be given on the merits of the case - Article 18 TFEU - Article 21(2) of the Charter - Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Requirement for national courts to inform their own Member State of any request for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court)

(2022/C 198/19)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

IP, DD, ZI, SS, HYA

Operative part of the order

1.

Article 267 TFEU and Article 94(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, read in the light of Article 4(3) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a national rule which requires courts hearing criminal cases, when they make factual findings in the context of a request for a preliminary ruling made to the Court, to decline jurisdiction on pain of annulment of the decision to be given on the merits of the case. Such a rule must be disregarded by those courts and by any authority empowered to apply it.

2.

Article 18 TFEU, Article 21(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State requiring a court which has submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to send a copy of that request to the authority responsible for representing that Member State before the Court.

---

(1)  Date of filing: 28.9.2021.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Orbest, SA v CS, QN, OP and Others

(Case C-659/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 5(3) - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Aircraft’s technical failure caused by the collision of a catering vehicle owned by a third party with that aircraft while the latter was parked at the airport)

(2022/C 198/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Orbest, SA

Defendants: CS, QN, OP and Others

Operative part of the order

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that the technical failure of an aircraft caused by the collision of a catering vehicle owned by a third party with that aircraft while the latter was parked at the airport may be covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  Filing date: 2.11.2021

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 September 2021 — XN v Politseyski organ pri 02 RU SDVR

(Case C-608/21)

(2022/C 198/21)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XN

Defendant: Politseyski organ pri 02 RU SDVR

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 8(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1), read in conjunction with Article 6(2) thereof, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which is applied in a corrective manner on the basis of settled case-law in the EU Member State concerned and under which it is permissible that information concerning the grounds for detaining a suspect, including information concerning the criminal offence of which he or she is suspected, is not contained in the written detention order, but in other accompanying documents (originating before or after that order) which are not provided to him or her immediately and of which the person can subsequently be informed in the event that he or she challenges the legality of the detention before the courts?

2.

Is Article 6(2) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ensure the effective exercise of the rights of the defence, the information concerning the criminal offence of which an arrested person is suspected must contain details regarding the time, place and manner of the commission of the offence, that person’s specific involvement in it and the consequent criminal nature of the offence?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 2 December 2021 by Marina Yachting Brand Management Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2021 in Case T-169/20, Marina Yachting Brand Management v EUIPO — Industries Sportswear

(Case C-743/21 P)

(2022/C 198/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Marina Yachting Brand Management Co. Ltd (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, C. Eckhartt, P. Böhner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Industries Sportswear Co. Srl

By order of 31/03/2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Marina Yachting Brand Management Co. Ltd should bear its own costs.

Appeal brought on 2 December 2021 by Henry Cotton's Brand Management Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2021 in Case T-173/20, Henry Cotton's Brand Management v EUIPO — Industries Sportswear

(Case C-744/21 P)

(2022/C 198/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Henry Cotton's Brand Management Co. Ltd (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, C. Eckhartt, P. Böhner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Industries Sportswear Co. Srl

By order of 31/03/2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Henry Cotton's Brand Management Co. Ltd should bear its own costs.

Appeal brought on 10 December 2021 by NB against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 28 September 2021 in Case T-648/20, NB v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-774/21 P)

(2022/C 198/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: NB (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat, N. Maes, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the order under appeal;

and, giving judgment itself,

—	annul the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union not to appoint her to Grade AST10 for appointment/promotion/‘reclassification’ exercise 2014-2018;

—	in any event, order the respondent to pay the costs at both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court committed a manifest error of assessment in deciding that the action was inadmissible.

She also claims that the procedure put in place by the institution for the implementation of the 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations as regards appointment/promotion from Grade AST 9 to Grade AST10 is unlawful.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 22 December 2021 — Staatsanwaltschaft Aachen

(Case C-819/21)

(2022/C 198/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Aachen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatsanwaltschaft Aachen

Other party: M.D.

Questions referred

1.

Can a court of the executing Member State which has been called on to rule on a declaration of enforceability refuse, on the basis of Article 3(4) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA (1) of 27 November 2008, in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to recognise the judgment of another Member State and to enforce the sentence imposed by that judgment in accordance with Article 8 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 where there are reasons to believe that the conditions prevailing in that Member State at the time of the adoption of the decision to be enforced or of the related subsequent decisions are incompatible with the fundamental right to a fair trial because, in that Member State, the judicial system itself is no longer in conformity with the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 TEU?

2.

Can a court of the executing Member State which has been called on to rule on a declaration of enforceability refuse, on the basis of Article 3(4) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008, in conjunction with the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 TEU, to recognise the judgment of another Member State and to enforce the sentence imposed by that judgment in accordance with Article 8 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 where there are reasons to believe that the judicial system in that Member State is no longer in conformity with the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 TEU at the time of the ruling on the declaration of enforceability?

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Before the recognition of a judgment of a court of another Member State and the enforcement of the sentence imposed by that judgment is refused by reference to Article 3(4) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008, in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that there are reasons to believe that the conditions prevailing in that Member State are incompatible with the fundamental right to a fair trial because, in that Member State, the judicial system itself is no longer in conformity with the principle of the rule of law, is it necessary to review, in a second step, whether the prevailing conditions which are incompatible with the fundamental right to a fair trial had a detrimental effect specifically on the sentenced person(s) in the proceedings in question?

4.

If Question 1 and/or Question 2 is/are answered in the negative to the effect that the decision as to whether the conditions prevailing in a Member State are incompatible with the fundamental right to a fair trial because, in that Member State, the judicial system itself is no longer in conformity with the principle of the rule of law is a matter not for the courts of the Member States but for the Court of Justice of the European Union: Was the judicial system in the Republic of Poland in conformity with the principle of the rule of law under Article 2 TEU on 7 August 2018 and/or 16 July 2019, and is it currently in conformity with it?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27).

Appeal brought on 28 December 2021 by Fachverband Spielhallen eV and LM against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 October 2021 in Case T-510/20, Fachverband Spielhallen eV and LM v European Commission

(Case C-831/21 P)

(2022/C 198/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Fachverband Spielhallen eV, LM (represented by: A. Bartosch and R. Schmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The appellants claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-510/20;

—	refer the case back to the General Court;

—	reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants raise a single ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU.

The General Court dismissed the action in Case T-510/20 solely on the ground that the measure at issue was not capable of conferring an economic advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. However, according to established EU case-law on tax matters, the criteria of advantage and selectivity must always be examined together. A finding of selectivity invariably presupposes the definition of a normal tax system. Without the definition of such a normal tax system, it is therefore impossible to determine whether there was an economic advantage. However, the General Court failed to examine the normal tax system and was therefore not entitled to conclude that the measure at issue did not confer an economic advantage. As a result, the contested decision is vitiated by a serious error of law.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 7 January 2022 — HTB Neunte Immobilien Portfolio geschlossene Investment UG & Co. KG v Müller Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

(Case C-17/22)

(2022/C 198/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HTB Neunte Immobilien Portfolio geschlossene Investment UG & Co. KG

Defendant: Müller Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

Questions referred

1.

a. Is Article 6(1)(b) and (f) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a partnership comprised of many members of the public, a limited partner with negligible liability has a ‘legitimate interest’ in obtaining information relating to all partners with shares held indirectly through a trustee, together with their contact details and the number of their shares in such a partnership, and a contractual obligation to that effect must be inferred from the partnership agreement? b. Or is a legitimate interest restricted under such circumstances to obtaining from the partnership information on limited partners with shares held indirectly and, rather than bearing negligible liability, hold shares above a minimum threshold that may, at least potentially, allow them to influence the future of the partnership?

2.

a. Does the intention to make contact for the purpose of becoming better acquainted, exchanging views or negotiating the purchase of shares in the partnership suffice in order not to exceed the limits to prevent abuse of rights inherent in such an unrestricted right (1a) or to make an exception to the restriction applicable to a restricted right to information (1b)? .b. Or is an interest in information potentially relevant only where its disclosure is requested with the express intention of contacting other partners in order to invite them to coordinate on specifically designated matters on which a consensus is needed for the purpose of partners’ resolutions?

---

(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).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 7 January 2022 — Ökorenta Neue Energien Ökostabil IV geschlossene Investment GmbH & Co. KG v WealthCap Photovoltaik 1 GmbH Co. KG, WealthCap PEIA Komplementär GmbH, WealthCap Investorenbetreuung GmbH

(Case C-18/22)

(2022/C 198/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ökorenta Neue Energien Ökostabil IV geschlossene Investment GmbH & Co. KG

Defendants: WealthCap Photovoltaik 1 GmbH Co. KG, WealthCap PEIA Komplementär GmbH, WealthCap Investorenbetreuung GmbH

Questions referred

1.

a. Is Article 6(1)(b) and (f) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a partnership comprised of many members of the public, a limited partner with negligible liability has a ‘legitimate interest’ in obtaining information relating to all partners with shares held indirectly through a trustee, together with their contact details and the number of their shares in such a partnership, and a contractual obligation to that effect must be inferred from the partnership agreement? b. Or is a legitimate interest restricted under such circumstances to obtaining from the partnership information on limited partners with shares held indirectly and, rather than bearing negligible liability, hold shares above a minimum threshold that may, at least potentially, allow them to influence the future of the partnership?

2.

a. Does the intention to make contact for the purpose of becoming better acquainted, exchanging views or negotiating the purchase of shares in the partnership suffice in order not to exceed the limits to prevent abuse of rights inherent in such an unrestricted right (1a) or to make an exception to the restriction applicable to a restricted right to information (1b)? b. Or is an interest in information potentially relevant only where its disclosure is requested with the express intention of contacting other partners in order to invite them to coordinate on specifically designated matters on which a consensus is needed for the purpose of partners’ resolutions?

---

(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).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu (Poland) lodged on 7 January 2022 — OP

(Case C-21/22)

(2022/C 198/29)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OP

Other party to the proceedings: Notariusz Justyna Gawlica

Questions referred

1.	Must Article 22 [of Regulation No 650/2012] be interpreted as meaning that a person who is not a citizen of the European Union is entitled to choose the law of his or her native country as the law governing all matters relating to succession? (1)

2.

Must Article 75, in conjunction with Article 22, of Regulation No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a bilateral agreement between a Member State and a third country does not govern the choice of law applicable to a case involving succession but indicates the law applicable to that case involving succession, a national of that third country residing in a Member State bound by that bilateral agreement may make a choice of law?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 7 January 2022 — T. S.A. v Przewodniczący Krajowej Rady Radiofonii i Telewizji

(Case C-22/22)

(2022/C 198/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: T. S.A.

Respondent: Przewodniczący Krajowej Rady Radiofonii i Telewizji

Question referred

Must Article 20(2) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), (1) in conjunction with Article 4(1) thereof, and Articles 11 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prohibits only television broadcasters from placing advertisements in their children’s programmes, but places no such prohibition on the broadcasters of on-demand audiovisual media services?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2022 — XXX v Helvetia schweizerische Lebensversicherungs-AG

(Case C-41/22)

(2022/C 198/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Erfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XXX

Defendant: Helvetia schweizerische Lebensversicherungs-AG

Questions referred

1.

Does EU law, in particular Article 15(1) of the Second Life Assurance Directive, (1) Article 31 of the Third Life Assurance Directive (2) and Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC, (3) read where appropriate in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude national legislation or case-law under which a policyholder — who has legitimately exercised his or her right of cancellation — is required to bear the burden of demonstration and proof for the purpose of quantifying the benefits of use derived by the insurer itself? Where such an imposition of the burden of demonstration and proof is permissible, does EU law, especially the principle of effectiveness, require that the policyholder enjoy, in return, rights to information or some other assistance from the insurer that will enable him or her to enforce his or her rights?

2.

Is an insurer which provided the policyholder with no information or only incorrect information on his or her right of cancellation prohibited from relying on forfeiture, abuse of rights or lapse of time to prevent the exercise of the policyholder’s resultant rights, including the right of cancellation?

3.

Is an insurer which provided the policyholder with no consumer information or only incomplete or incorrect consumer information prohibited from relying on forfeiture, abuse of rights or lapse of time to prevent the exercise of the policyholder’s resultant rights, including the right of cancellation?

---

(1)  Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50).

(2)  Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).

(3)  Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 18 January 2022 — Prokurator Generalny

(Case C-43/22)

(2022/C 198/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Prokurator Generalny

Other parties to the proceedings: D.J., D[X]. J., Ł.J., S.J., Wojewódzkie Pogotowie Ratunkowe w K.

Questions referred

1.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) and Article 5(1) to (3) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as precluding national rules under which the Minister for Justice of a Member State may, on the basis of criteria which have not been made public, on the one hand, second a judge to a higher civil court with jurisdiction over matters of EU law for a fixed or indefinite period, and, on the other hand, terminate the secondment of that judge at any time by way of a decision which does not contain a statement of reasons?

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) and Article 5(1) to (3) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that a national court seised of an appeal against a decision of a court which includes a judge seconded in the manner described in the first question is required to examine of its own motion whether that court is independent and impartial even if the case at issue does not involve a matter of EU law?

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative: must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) and Article 5(1) to (3) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as requiring a court of a Member State to set aside a final court decision whenever it is established that such a seconded judge participated in the examination of the case, and that the court which included the judge in question was not independent and impartial, by means of a legal remedy the purpose of which is to set aside final decisions, such as an extraordinary appeal, or does the determination of the effects of such an infringement come within the procedural autonomy of the Member State?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 21 January 2022 — Apotheke B. v Bundesamt für Sicherheit im Gesundheitswesen (BASG)

(Case C-47/22)

(2022/C 198/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Apotheke B.

Respondent authority: Bundesamt für Sicherheit im Gesundheitswesen (BASG)

Questions referred

1.

(a) Must Article 80(b) of Directive 2001/83 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the requirement deriving from that provision is fulfilled even where, as in the main proceedings, a holder of distribution authorisation obtains medicinal products from other persons who are also authorised or entitled to supply medicinal products to the public under national law but who are not themselves in possession of such distribution authorisation or who are exempt from the obligation to obtain such distribution authorisation under the terms of Article 77(3) of that directive, and only small quantities are supplied? (b) If Question 1(a) is answered in the negative, is it relevant to compliance with the requirement laid down in Article 80(b) of Directive 2001/83 whether a supply of medicinal products obtained in the manner described in the main proceedings and in Question 1(a) is made only to persons authorised or entitled to supply medicinal products to the public under Article 77(2) of that directive or also to those who are themselves holders of distribution authorisation?

2.

(a) Must Articles 79(b) and 80(g) of that directive, in conjunction with point 2.2 of the Guidelines on Good Distribution Practice of medicinal products of 5 November 2013, be interpreted as meaning that the staffing requirements are fulfilled even where, as in the main proceedings, the responsible person is (physically) absent from the premises for a period of four hours but can be contacted by telephone during that time? (b) Must Directive 2001/83, in particular Articles 79 and 80(g) thereof, in conjunction with the first paragraph of point 2.3 of the Guidelines on Good Distribution Practice of medicinal products of 5 November 2013, be interpreted as meaning that the staffing requirements provided for in those provisions and guidelines are met where, as in the main proceedings, in the event that the responsible person is absent as described in Question 2(a), the staff present on the premises are not able, in particular in the event of an inspection by the competent authority of the Member State, to provide information themselves on the written procedures relating to their respective areas of responsibility? (c) Must Directive 2001/83, and in particular Articles 79 and 80(g) thereof, in conjunction with point 2.3 of the Guidelines on Good Distribution Practice of medicinal products of 5 November 2013, be interpreted as meaning that, in assessing whether an adequate number of competent personnel is involved in all stages of the wholesale distribution activities, account must also be taken of activities outsourced to third parties (or activities carried out by third parties on behalf of the establishment), as occurred in the case in the main proceedings, and does that directive preclude or even require the obtaining of an expert report for the purposes of that assessment?

3.

Must Directive 2001/83, in particular Articles 77(6) and 79 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the authorisation to engage in activity as a wholesaler in medicinal products must also be revoked where it is established that a requirement under Article 80 of that directive is not fulfilled — for example, medicinal products are obtained in a manner contrary to Article 80(b) of that directive, as may be the case in the main proceedings — but that requirement is then once more complied with, in any event at the time of the decision by the competent authority of the Member State or the court before which the matter is brought? If not: what other requirements for that assessment exist under EU law, and, in particular, when must the authorisation be (merely) suspended instead of revoked?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 1 February 2022 — UZ v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-60/22)

(2022/C 198/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UZ

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred

1.

Does the failure of a controller to discharge or fully to discharge its obligation of accountability under Article 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), (1) for example due to the lack of a record — or a complete record — of processing activities in accordance with Article 30 of the GDPR or the lack of an arrangement for a joint procedure in accordance with Article 26 of the GDPR, result in the data processing in question being unlawful within the meaning of Article 17(1)(d) of the GDPR and Article 18(1)(b) of the GDPR, so that the data subject has a right to erasure or restriction?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the existence of a right to erasure or restriction have the consequence that the data processed must not be taken into account in judicial proceedings? Is that the case in any event where the data subject objects to the use of the data in the judicial proceedings?

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative, does an infringement by a controller of Article 5, 30 or 26 of the GDPR have the consequence that, with regard to the question as to the use of the processed data in judicial proceedings, a national court may take the data into account only if the data subject expressly consents to that use?

---

(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, corrigendum OJ 2018 L 127, p. 2).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 11 February 2022 — Companhia de Distribuição Integral Logística Portugal, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-96/22)

(2022/C 198/35)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Companhia de Distribuição Integral Logística Portugal, S.A.

Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred

1.

Do the quantitative limits on the release for consumption established by Article 106 of the Código dos Impostos Especiais do Consumo (Excise Duty Code, ‘the CIEC’) constitute quantitative restrictions on imports or measures having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU, in so far as Article 106 stipulates that, during the last four months of each year, the quantities of cigarettes sold by operators may not exceed the average monthly quantity of cigarettes released for consumption in the 12 months immediately preceding?

2.

Is it contrary to the rules on the chargeability of excise duty established by Articles 7 and 9 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (1) of 16 December 2008 to levy tax on any quantities of cigarettes that exceed the quantitative limit on the release for consumption established under Article 106(2) of the CIEC at the rate applicable on the date on which the declaration of discharge is lodged, in accordance with Article 106(7) of the CIEC?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 14 February 2022 — Eurelec Trading SCRL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Scabel SA, Groupement d’Achat des Centres Édouard Leclerc (GALEC), Association des Centres distributeurs Édouard Leclerc (ACDLEC)

(Case C-98/22)

(2022/C 198/36)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Eurelec Trading SCRL

Respondents: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Scabel SA, Groupement d’Achat des Centres Édouard Leclerc (GALEC), Association des Centres distributeurs Édouard Leclerc (ACDLEC)

Question referred

Are ‘civil and commercial’ matters, as defined in Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, (1) to be interpreted as including in the scope of that regulation an action — and the judicial decision rendered at the end of the proceedings — (i) brought by the French Minister for Economic Affairs and Finances pursuant to (former) Article L 442-6, I, 2o of the French Commercial Code against a Belgian company, (ii) seeking a declaration of the existence of restrictive practices, an order that they cease and an order that the alleged perpetrator of those practices pay a civil fine, (iii) on the basis of evidence obtained in the exercise of his specific powers of investigation?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz (Austria) lodged on 28 February 2022 — TLL The Longevity Labs GmbH v Optimize Health Solutionsmi GmbH and BM

(Case C-141/22)

(2022/C 198/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TLL The Longevity Labs GmbH

Defendants: Optimize Health Solutionsmi GmbH, BM

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 3(2)(a)(iv) of Regulation (EU) [2015/2283] (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods to be interpreted as meaning that ‘sprouted buckwheat flour with a high spermidine content’ is a novel food, inasmuch as only sprouted buckwheat flour without a raised spermidine content was used for human consumption to a significant degree within the European Union before 15 May 1997 or has a history of safe food use thereafter, irrespective of how the spermidine comes to be in the sprouted buckwheat flour?

2.	If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 3(2)(a)(vii) of Regulation (EU) [2015/2283] of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘production process’ for food includes primary production processes?

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Does the novelty of a production process within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a)(vii) of Regulation (EU) [2015/2283] of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods depend on whether the production process itself has never before been used for any food or whether it has not been used for the food under assessment?

4.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative: Does the germination of buckwheat seed in a nutrient solution containing spermidine qualify as a primary production process for a plant to which food legislation, including Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, does not apply, as the plant is not a food prior to harvesting (Article 2(c) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002)? (2)

5.	Does it make a difference if the nutrient solution contains natural or synthetic spermidine?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001 (OJ 2015 L 327, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 25 February 2022 — Hellfire Massy Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála, The Minister for Housing, Heritage and Local Government, Ireland, The Attorney General

(Case C-166/22)

(2022/C 198/38)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hellfire Massy Residents Association

Defendants: An Bord Pleanála, The Minister for Housing, Heritage and Local Government, Ireland, The Attorney General

Other parties: South Dublin County Council, An Taisce — The National Trust for Ireland, Save the Bride Otters

Questions referred

1.

The first question is: whether the general principles of EU law arising from the supremacy of the EU legal order have the effect that a rule of domestic procedure whereby an applicant in judicial review must expressly plead the relevant legal provisions cannot preclude an applicant who challenges the compatibility of domestic law with identified EU law from also relying on a challenge based on legal doctrines or instruments that are to be read as inherently relevant to the interpretation of such EU law, such as the principle that EU environmental law should be read in conjunction with the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998 as an integral part of the EU legal order.

2.

The second question is: whether arts. 12 and/or 16 of directive 92/43/EEC (1) and/or those provisions as read in conjunction with art. 9(2) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998 and/or in conjunction with the principle that member states must take all the requisite specific measures for the effective implementation of the directive have the effect that a rule of domestic procedure whereby an applicant must not raise a ‘hypothetical question’ and ‘must be affected in reality or as a matter of fact’ before she can complain regarding the compatibility of the domestic law with a provision of EU law cannot be relied on to preclude a challenge made by an applicant who has invoked the public participation rights in respect of an administrative decision and who then wishes to pursue a challenge to the validity of a provision of domestic law by reference to EU law in anticipation of future damage to the environment as result of an alleged shortcoming in the domestic law, where there is a reasonable possibility of such future damage, in particular because the development has been authorised in an area which is a habitat for species subject to strict protection and/or because applying the precautionary approach there is a possibility that post-consent surveys may give rise to a need to apply for a derogation under art. 16 of the directive.

3.

The third question is: whether arts. 12 and/or 16 of directive 92/43/EEC and/or those provisions as read in conjunction with arts. 6(1) to (9) and/or 9(2) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998 and/or with the principle that member states must take all the requisite specific measures for the effective implementation of the directive have the effect that a derogation licence system provided in domestic law to give effect to art. 16 of the directive should not be parallel to and independent of the development consent system but should be part of an integrated approval process involving a decision by a competent authority (as opposed to an ad hoc judgement formed by the developer itself on the basis of a general provision of criminal law) as to whether a derogation licence should be applied for by reason of matters identified following the grant of development consent and/or involving a decision by a competent authority as to what surveys are required in the context of consideration as to whether such a licence should be applied for.

4.

The fourth question is: whether arts. 12 and/or 16 of directive 92/43/EEC and/or those provisions as read in conjunction with arts. 6(1) to (9) and/or 9(2) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998 have the consequence that, in respect of a development where the grant of development consent was subjected to appropriate assessment under art. 6(3) of directive 92/43/EEC, and in a context where a post-consent derogation may be sought under art. 16 of directive 92/43/EEC, there is a requirement for a public participation procedure in conformity with art. 6 of the Aarhus Convention.

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992, L 206, p. 7).

Appeal brought on 28 March 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 19 January 2022 in Case T-610/19, Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission

(Case C-221/22 P)

(2022/C 198/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Calleja Crespo, B. Martenczuk, N. Khan, P. Rossi, L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Deutsche Telekom AG

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2022 in Case T-610/19, in so far as it upholds Deutsche Telekom AG’s action;

—	rule itself on the outstanding issues; or

—	in the alternative, in so far as it has not yet been resolved, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

—	order Deutsche Telekom AG to pay all the costs arising from the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In essence, the present appeal, to which the European Commission attaches fundamental importance for the interpretation and application of Article 266 TFEU, concerns the Commission’s obligation to pay default interest on a fine under competition law in case of its reimbursement. Pursuant to a decision of the Commission, Deutsche Telekom AG provisionally paid a fine for abuse of its dominant position under Article 102 TFEU, which was however subsequently reduced by the General Court of the European Union. (1) The Commission now contests the obligation imposed on it by the General Court in the judgment under appeal to pay default interest of a penal nature on the part of the fine to be reimbursed, within the meaning of the Printeos case-law. (2)

By its first ground of appeal, the Commission claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, in case of a reduction of a fine by the EU Courts in the context of the law governing competition, the Commission is under an absolute and unconditional obligation to pay default interest of a penal nature from the date of the provisional payment of the fine.

In particular, the Commission argues that:

The General Court erred in finding that the Commission infringed Article 266 TFEU by not paying any default interest in the amount claimed by Deutsche Telekom AG (first part of the first ground of appeal).

The judgment under appeal contradicts the case-law of the EU judicature prior to the Commission v Printeos judgment (second part of the first ground of appeal).

Furthermore, EU secondary law governs the interest payable for the implementation of judgments and the General Court should have either applied or declared that secondary law invalid (third part of first ground of appeal).

The conditions for an action for damages pursuant to Article 340 TFEU are not met with the result that the General Court erred in law in awarding default interest by way of compensation (fourth part of the first ground of appeal).

The ex tunc effect of judgments does not entail the payment of default interest from the date on which the undertaking concerned provisionally paid the fine (fifth part of the first ground of appeal).

The payment of default interest within the meaning of the judgment under appeal runs counter to the deterrent effect of fines (sixth part of the first ground of appeal).

By its second ground of appeal, the Commission submits, in the event that its first ground of appeal is dismissed, that the General Court erred in law in holding that the interest rate to be paid by the Commission, by analogy with Article 83(2)(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012, (3) is the refinancing rate of the European Central Bank increased by three and a half percentage points.

---

(1)  Judgment of 13 December 2018, Deutsche Telekom v Commission (T-827/14, EU:T:2018:930).

(2)  Judgment of 20 January 2021, Commission v Printeos (C-301/19 P, EU:C:2021:39).

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

Order of the President of the Court of 8 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt — Sweden) — Republiken Italien v Athena Investments A/S (formerly Greentech Energy Systems A/S) and Others

(Case C-155/21) (1)

(2022/C 198/40)

Language of the case: Swedish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — MEKH and FGSZ v ACER

(Joined Cases T-684/19 and T-704/19) (1)

(Energy - Regulation (EU) 2017/459 - Network code adopted by the Commission including an ‘incremental capacity process’ - ACER decision approving the implementation of an incremental capacity project - Plea of illegality - Lack of competence of the Commission - Article 6(11), Article 7(3) and Article 8(6) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009)

(2022/C 198/41)

Languages of the case: English and Hungarian

Parties

Applicant in Case T-684/19: Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal (MEKH) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: G. Stanka, J. Burai-Kovács, G. Szikla and Á. Kulcsár, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-704/19: FGSZ Földgázszállító Zrt. (Siófok, Hungary) (represented by: M. Horányi, N. Niejahr and S. Zakka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented: in Case T-684/19, by P. Martinet, D. Lelovitis and N. Keyaerts, acting as Agents, and by E. Ameye, M. de Sousa Ferro and Cs. Nagy, lawyers, and, in Case T-704/19, by P. Martinet, D. Lelovitis and N. Keyaerts, acting as Agents, and by E. Ameye and M. de Sousa Ferro, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E–Control) (represented by: S. Polster, lawyer), European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision No 05/19 of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 9 April 2019 and of Decision No A-004-2019 of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 6 August 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Declares the action brought by Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal (MEKH) inadmissible in so far as it concerns Decision No 05/2019 of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 9 April 2019;

2.	Annuls Decision No A-004-2019 of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 6 August 2019;

3.	Orders ACER to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by MEKH and FGSZ Földgázszállító Zrt.;

4.	Orders the European Commission and Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — HB v EIB

(Case T-757/19) (1)

(Civil service - Staff of the EIB - Complaint alleging psychological harassment - Administrative enquiry - Decision dismissing the complaint - Decision rejecting the request for conciliation - Right to be heard - Liability)

(2022/C 198/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HB (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the decisions of the EIB of 20 June and 10 October 2019 rejecting, respectively, a complaint of harassment and intimidation, and a request for conciliation, and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of 20 June 2019 of the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB);

2.	Orders the EIB to pay HB the sum of EUR 1 000 in respect of the loss of opportunity to settle the dispute amicably;

3.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4.	Orders the EIB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HB.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-10/20) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Area-related aid scheme - Financial corrections - Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 12(2) and (6) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 - Definition of ‘permanent grasslands’ - Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Producer organisation and operational programmes - Articles 26, 27, 31, 104 and 106 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 - Article 155 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 499/2014 - Public procurement procedure - Article 24(2)(c) and Article 26(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Article 48(2) and Article 51(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 - Risk of financial loss)

(2022/C 198/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by C. Gerardis, G. Rocchitta and E. Feola, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, J. Aquilina and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1835 of 30 October 2019 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2019 L 279, p. 98), in so far as it relates to certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1835 of 30 October 2019 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it imposes a flat rate correction of 2 % on the Italian Republic relating to area aid granted in Italy in the amount of EUR 143 924 279,14 for the claim years 2015 and 2016 and a flat rate correction of 10 % in the amount of EUR 72 704,23 relating to sample/payment No 8 concerning the commune of Campoli Monte Taburno, pursuant to Measure 322, included in rural development measures for the claim years 2014, 2015 and 2016;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — BSEF v Commission

(Case T-113/20) (1)

(Energy - Directive 2009/125/EC - Ecodesign requirements for electronic displays - Regulation (EU) 2019/2021 - Ban on halogenated flame retardants in the enclosure and stand of electronic displays - Competence of the author of the act - Manifest error of assessment - Legal certainty - Proportionality - Equal treatment)

(2022/C 198/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bromine Science Environnemental Forum (BSEF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. De Meester and L. Haasbeek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2021 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for electronic displays pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2009 (OJ 2019 L 315, p. 241), in so far as it bans the use of halogenated flame retardants in the enclosure and stand of electronic displays.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Bromine Science Environnemental Forum (BSEF) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Sabra v Council

(Case T-249/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Errors of assessment - Criterion of a leading businessperson operating in Syria - Presumption of a link with the Syrian regime - Rebuttal of the presumption)

(2022/C 198/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Abdelkader Sabra (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester QC, and A. Bradshaw, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Haas and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 43 I, p. 6), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 43 I, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as those measures concern Mr Abdelkader Sabra;

2.	Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Giuliani (IALO TSP)

(Case T-333/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark IALO TSP - Earlier international word mark HYALO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Identification of a member of the Board of Appeal - Article 165(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 198/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H.P. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Giuliani SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: S. de Bosio, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2020 (Case R 2107/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Fidia farmaceutici and Giuliani.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Fidia farmaceutici SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3.	Orders Giuliani SpA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — LA v Commission

(Case T-456/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Criteria to assess professional experience - Compliance of criteria applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice)

(2022/C 198/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: LA (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Lilamand and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 refusing the applicant’s request for review of the decision not to admit her to the next phase of the open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 and, secondly, of the decision of the appointing authority of 6 April 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 refusing the request for review of LA’s exclusion from competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

2.	Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Kühne v Parliament

(Case T-468/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Policy of Parliament staff mobility - Reassignment in the interest of the service)

(2022/C 198/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Verena Kühne (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Schmechel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and B. Schäfer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 2 July 2020 reassigning the applicant to the Liaison Office in Luxembourg (Luxembourg).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mrs Verena Kühne to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — LD v Commission

(Case T-474/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Criterion to assess professional experience - Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice)

(2022/C 198/49)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: LD (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Lilamand and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the Selection Board of 31 October 2019 refusing the applicant’s request for review of the decision not to admit her to the next phase of the open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 and, secondly, of the decision of the appointing authority of 22 April 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 31 October 2019 refusing the request for review of LD’s exclusion from competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

2.	Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — Zardini v Commission

(Case T-511/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Criterion to assess professional experience - Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice)

(2022/C 198/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Zardini (Marano di Valpollicella, Italy) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Lilamand and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of, first, the decision of the Selection Board of 31 October 2019 rejecting the request for a review of the refusal to admit the applicant to the next phase of Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19, and, second, the decision of the appointing authority of 7 May 2020 rejecting the complaint of the applicant against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 31 October 2019 rejecting the request for a review of the exclusion of Mr Alessandro Zardini from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

2.	Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — D & A Pharma v Commission and EMA

(Case T-556/20) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Application for conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Hopveus — sodium oxybate - Decision of refusal by the Commission - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Procedure - Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use - Request for consultation of a specific scientific advisory group - Impartiality of members of an ad hoc committee of experts - Manifest errors of assessment - Equal treatment)

(2022/C 198/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Viguié and D. Krzisch, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: G. Wils and A. Sipos, acting as Agents), European Medicines Agency (represented by: S. Marino, S. Drosos, C. Bortoluzzi and H. Kerr, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission’s Implementing Decision of 6 July 2020 refusing marketing authorisation for Hopveus — sodium oxybate, a medicinal product for human use, under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Genekam Biotechnology v Commission

(Case T-579/20) (1)

(Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Fibrogelnet project - Recovery of an amount receivable - Risk avoidance mechanism - Amount receivable effectively recovered from the Guarantee Fund - Decision establishing a pecuniary obligation and forming an enforceable decision - Article 299 TFEU - Competence of the author of the act - Termination of the applicant’s participation in the project - Eligible costs - Reports and deliverables)

(2022/C 198/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Genekam Biotechnology AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Hertwig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. André, J. Estrada de Solà and R. Pethke, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 5548 final of 7 August 2020 establishing a pecuniary obligation and forming an enforceable decision against the applicant for the amount of EUR 119 659,55, together with default interest, arising from the grant that it received in respect of the Fibrogelnet project.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Genekam Biotechnology AG to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — NV v eu-LISA

(Case T-661/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Staff of eu-LISA - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Reprimand - Implementing provisions concerning administrative inquiries - Plea of illegality - Article 110 of the Staff Regulations - Failure to consult the Staff Committee - Rights of the defence and right to be heard - Articles 12, 12a, 17 and 19 of the Staff Regulations - Error of assessment - Principle of good administration - Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2022/C 198/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) (represented by: M. Chiodi, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of eu-LISA of 3 February 2020 to impose on the applicant the penalty of a reprimand and, secondly, compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — ON v Commission

(Case T-730/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Retroactive refusal - Recovery of undue payments - Article 85 of the Staff Regulations - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2022/C 198/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ON (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 12 March 2020 obliging him to repay an amount of EUR 38 897,39 by way of recovery of undue payments on account of the incorrect payment of an expatriation allowance since his recruitment and, second, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered because of the late adjustment by the Commission of that incorrect payment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders TA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — OT v Parliament

(Case T-757/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary penalty - Reprimand - Article 21a of the Staff Regulations - Error of assessment)

(2022/C 198/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OT (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Lázaro Betancor and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 19 December 2019 imposing a reprimand on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 19 December 2019 imposing a reprimand on the applicant;

2.	Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — PrenzMarien v EUIPO — Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) (STONES)

(Case T-766/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark STONES - Declaration of revocation in part - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use in the European Union - Article 19(1) and Article 10(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2022/C 198/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PrenzMarien GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd (Burton Upon Trent, United Kingdom) (represented by: H.-M. Elo and E. Hodge, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2020 (Case R 274/2020-2), relating to revocation proceedings between PrenzMarien and Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders PrenzMarien GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — Team Beverage v EUIPO (Beverage Analytics)

(Case T-113/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Beverage Analytics - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 198/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Team Beverage AG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2020 (Case R 727/2020-5), regarding an application for registration of the word sign Beverage Analytics as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 December 2020 (Case R 727/2020-5) in so far as it refuses registration of the word sign Beverage Analytics as an EU trade mark for ‘Website development software’ and ‘Computer operating programs, recorded’ in Class 9 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and for the services of ‘Creating and maintaining web sites for others’, ‘Transfer of data or documents from physical to electronic data carriers’, ‘Monitoring of computer systems by remote access to ensure proper functioning’, ‘Web site design consultancy’, ‘Digitization of documents’, ‘Duplication of computer programs’, ‘Quality control’, ‘Recovery of computer data’ and ‘Testing and research relating to machines, apparatus and instruments’ in Class 42;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — Telefónica Germany v EUIPO (LOOP)

(Case T-132/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark LOOP - Partial rejection of the application for registration - Absolute grounds of refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Objective characteristics inherent in the nature of the products and services - Sufficiently direct and specific relationship - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 198/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Scardocchia and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2020 (Case R 644/2020-4) relating to an application for registration of the word sign LOOP as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 December 2020 (Case R 644/2020-4) in so far as it concerns the goods in Class 9 and the services in Classes 38 and 42 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG to bear one third of its own costs, including one third of the costs incurred by it for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

4.	Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Telefónica Germany, including two thirds of the costs incurred by Telefónica Germany for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — Vetpharma Animal Health v EUIPO — Deltavit (DELTATIC)

(Case T-146/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark DELTATIC - Earlier EU word mark DELTA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), and Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

(2022/C 198/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vetpharma Animal Health, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Deltavit (Janzé, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2020 (Case R 776/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Deltavit and Vetpharma Animal Health.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Vetpharma Animal Health, SL, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3.	Orders Deltavit to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO …?)

(Case T-196/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark SO …? - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 198/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lea Nature Services (Périgny, France) (represented by: F. Drageon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: J. Quirin and J. P. Jacquey, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 (Case R 1235/2020 4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Lea Nature Services and Debonair Trading Internacional.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Lea Nature Services to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO …?)

(Case T-197/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SO …? - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 198/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lea Nature Services (Périgny, France) (represented by: F. Drageon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: J. Quirin and J. P. Jacquey, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 (Case R 1234/2020 4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Lea Nature Services and Debonair Trading Internacional.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Lea Nature Services to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — Stryker v EUIPO (RUGGED)

(Case T-204/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark RUGGED - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Competence of the Board of Appeal - Article 71 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 198/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stryker Corp. (Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, I. Junkar and B. Worbes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2021 (Case R 370/2020-5), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark RUGGED.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Stryker Corp. is to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — Hrebenyuk v EUIPO (Shape of a stand-up collar)

(Case T-252/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a stand-up collar - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 198/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Anna Hrebenyuk (Griesheim, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Ruhl, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2021 (Case R 1902/2020-5), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a stand-up collar as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Ms Anna Hrebenyuk to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Ye (APE TEES)

(Case T-281/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark APE TEES - Earlier national non-registered figurative trade marks representing an ape - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and Euratom)

(2022/C 198/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nowhere Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Junguo Ye (Elche, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 (Case R 2474/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Nowhere Co. and Mr Ye.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 February 2021 (Case R 2474/2017-2);

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — TA v Parliament

(Case T-314/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report 2019 - Fixing of objectives - Internal rules on staff reports - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 198/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TA (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. González Argüelles and R. Schiano, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of her staff report for the period 1 January to 31 December 2019, as amended by the decision of 29 March 2021 dismissing the claim in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders TA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Nordesta (APIAL)

(Case T-315/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark APIAL - Earlier EU word mark APIRETAL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)

(2022/C 198/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Miralles Llorca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nordesta GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 (Case R 1560/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Nordesta.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — Ionfarma v EUIPO — LG Electronics (AION)

(Case T-465/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark AION - Earlier national figurative mark ION and earlier word mark IONFARMA - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 198/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ionfarma, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2021 (Case R 2223/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ionfarma and LG Electronics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Ionfarma, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

Order of the General Court of 4 March 2022 — KI v eu-LISA

(Case T-338/20) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Internal reorganisation of the services of eu-LISA - Filling posts by reassignment - Interests of the service - Correspondence between the grade and the post - No act adversely affecting the applicant - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 198/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) (represented by: K. Czekalowski and M. Chiodi, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of eu-LISA of 15 July 2019 to reassign the applicant following the internal reorganisation of the services of that agency, and second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.	KI shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

Order of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — Kirimova v EUIPO

(Case T-727/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 198/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nigar Kirimova (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Parassina and A. García López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Predonzani and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Executive Director of EUIPO of 30 September 2020 rejecting the applicant’s request for an exemption from the requirement to be a national of one of the Member States of the European Economic Area (EEA) upon which inclusion on the list of professional representatives authorised by that office depends.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.	Ms Nigar Kirimova is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (doglover)

(Case T-114/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 198/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Growth Finance Plus AG (Gommiswald, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2020 (Case R 720/2020-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign doglover as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

2.	The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (catlover)

(Case T-115/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 198/71)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Growth Finance Plus AG (Gommiswald, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2020 (Case R 717/2020-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign catlover as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

2.	The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2022 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (Spicy Ginger)

(Case T-220/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 198/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Henry GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2021 (Case R 435/2020-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Spicy Ginger as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

2.	The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Thomas Henry GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2022 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airscreen)

(Case T-382/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark airscreen - Earlier EU word mark AIRSCREEN - Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 198/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Moviescreens Rental GmbH (Damme, Germany) (represented by: D. Schulz and P. Stelzig, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 May 2021 (Case R 1990/2020-4), concerning opposition proceedings between the airscreen company and Moviescreens Rental.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

Order of the General Court of 1 March 2022 — Agreiter and Others v Commission

(Case T-632/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Medicinal products for human use - Amendment of the conditional marketing authorisation for Spikevax, a medicinal product for human use - COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified) - No interest in bringing proceedings - Lack of direct concern - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 198/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Karin Agreiter (Merano, Italy) and the 33 other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to the order (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 of the TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 5686 final of 23 July 2021 amending the conditional marketing authorisation for ‘Spikevax’ — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified), a medicinal product for human use granted by Implementing Decision C(2021) 94 final of 6 January 2021.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by Moderna Biotech Spain SL.

3.	Ms Karin Agreiter and the other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex shall pay the costs.

4.	Moderna Biotech Spain shall bear its own costs related to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

Action brought on 11 March 2022 — Deckers Outdoor v EUIPO — Chunxian (TULEUGG)

(Case T-135/22)

(2022/C 198/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Deckers Outdoor Corp. (Goleta, California, United States) (represented by: A. Improda and C. Brega, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guo Chunxian (Mengzhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark TULEUGG — Application for registration No 18 156 704

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2021 in Case R 412/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul and overturn the contested decision;

—	as a consequence, reject the application for registration no. 18 156 704 for the trademark TULEUGG;

—	order EUIPO and/or Mr Chunxian to pay the legal fees related to the present proceedings, as well as the ones related to the previous proceedings held before the Opposition Division and the Fifth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

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

Action brought on 10 March 2022 — Hamoudi v Frontex

(Case T-136/22)

(2022/C 198/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alaa Hamoudi (Turkey) (represented by: F. Gatta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should order Frontex to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 250,000 by way of damages in respect of non-material damage with regard to each of the two heads of claim. In particular, the applicant claims compensation:

—	for the damage suffered by him as a result of violations of his fundamental rights under articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 18, 19(1), 19(2) and 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘CFR’) during and following his collective expulsion from Greece which lasted from 28 to 29 April 2020 in the Aegean Sea;

—	for his feelings of injustice and frustration caused to him by the fact that the author or co-author of the collective expulsion directed against him on the 28–29 April 2020 was an agency of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Frontex approved the launching of RBI Aegean in violation of Art. 46(5) of Regulation 2019/1896 (1), in a manifest error of assessment, misuse of power, and while failing to act with due diligence, thereby failing to observe the principle of sound administration. In particular, Frontex’s ED has unlawfully approved the launching of RBI Aegean, in breach of Art. 46(5) of the Agency’s founding regulation, by not exercising his discretionary powers with regards to the very examination of the applicability of this provision to the extremely volatile situation to be regulated. In the alternative, the ED committed a manifest error of assessment and misuse of power, and failed to fulfil his duty to act with diligence in considering that Art. 46(5) does not apply to the situation to be regulated. Both the first and the second aspects of the non-material damage would not have occurred without the unlawful omission or conduct attributable to Frontex.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Frontex committed an unlawful omission capable of giving rise to non-contractual liability, when failing to act in accordance with Art. 46(4) of Regulation 2019/1896, in infringement of its positive obligations according to Art. 80 of that regulation and articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 18, 19(1), 19(2) and 21 of the CFR (2), the principle of sound administration, and in a misuse of power and manifest error of assessment. Frontex’s ED has unlawfully failed to exercise his discretionary powers in relation to Art. 46(4) of the Agency’s founding regulation before, during and also after the occurrence of the pushback operation of 28–29 April 2020. In the alternative, the ED committed a manifest error of assessment and misuse of power, and failed to fulfil his duty of diligence, in considering that Art. 46(4) does not apply to the situation to be regulated. Both aspects of the non-material damage would not have occurred without the contested unlawful failure to act of Frontex.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Frontex committed an unlawful act capable of giving rise to non-contractual liability, in relation to the pushback operation of the 28–29 April 2020, by infringing the applicant’s fundamental rights under articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 18,19(1), 19(2) and 21 of the CFR. The unlawful collective expulsion of the applicant on 28–29 April 2020 is attributable to Frontex, its ‘true author’, since it was executed in line with the legally binding Operational Plan for RBI Aegean, drafted by Frontex’s ED. In the alternative, Frontex incurs liability based on its aiding and assisting in the commission of the unlawful collective expulsion of the applicant taking place on 28–29 April 2020. Both aspects of non-material damage would not have occurred without the contested unlawful conducts of the Agency.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624.

(2)  OJ 2012, C 326, p. 391.

Action brought on 14 March 2022 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-137/22)

(2022/C 198/77)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: and M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the Commission decision bearing reference number Ares (2022) 99942 refusing the request of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for an extension by 4 years in addition to the 8-year period rule for the recovery of unduly paid amounts resulting from the FresQ case, and

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on an erroneous assumption that the recovery procedure in the FresQ case is not yet finalised.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission makes an erroneous application of the third subparagraph of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 in so far as it assumes that the exceedance of the 8-year period for the recovery of the unduly paid amounts resulting from the FresQ case is attributable to the Netherlands.

Action brought on 15 March 2022 — HCP v EUIPO — Timm Health Care (PYLOMED)

(Case T-138/22)

(2022/C 198/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: HCP GmbH (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: H. Suhren, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Timm Health Care BV (Borculo, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for 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 PYLOMED — Application for registration No 18 132 059

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2022 in Case R 814/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 15 March 2022 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB

(Case T-142/22)

(2022/C 198/79)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 December 2021 on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions of the Landesbank Baden-Württemberg to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/82), including the annexes thereto;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law: The decision infringes Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (1) in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958, (2) and the general principle of equality, because it is not worded in the official language of German, which is to be used with the applicant, and deviates from the language used for decisions issued to other German institutions.

2.

Second plea in law: The decision infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) because it contains numerous instances of failure to state reasons, in particular with regard to the use by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers conferred by law, and is not comprehensible and transparent.

3.	Third plea in law: The decision infringes the requirement of effective legal protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter because judicial review of the decision is practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection.

4.

Fourth plea in law: The second sentence of Article 7(4) of the delegated regulation (3) infringes higher-ranking law because it allows for an objectively inappropriate and disproportionate differentiation to be made between the members of an Institutional Protection Scheme (‘IPS’) and for the IPS indicator to be relativised.

5.

Fifth plea in law: The decision infringes, inter alia, Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (4) and the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions because it uses a multiplier of 5/9 for the IPS indicator in the case of the applicant. A differentiation between institutions at the level of the IPS indicator is, on account of the extensive protective effect of an IPS, incompatible with the scheme and arbitrary.

6.	Sixth plea in law: Articles 6, 7 and 9 of and Annex I to the delegated regulation infringe higher-ranking law, inter alia because they infringe the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts.

7.	Seventh plea in law: The decision infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality because the underlying risk-adjustment multipliers are not commensurate with the applicant’s risk profile, which is better than average.

8.	Eighth plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter as well as the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration on account of obvious errors in the exercise by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers.

9.	Ninth plea in law: The first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of the delegated regulation infringe Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (5) and the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958 17, p. 385).

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

(4)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

(5)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

Action brought on 17 March 2022 — CEDC International v EUIPO — Underberg (Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle)

(Case T-145/22)

(2022/C 198/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Fijałkowski, radca prawny)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Underberg AG (Dietlikon, Switzerland)

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 tridimensional mark (Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle) — Application for registration No 33 266

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 December 2021 in Case R 1954/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in part in respect of the grounds of opposition under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

—	order EUIPO and the other party before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in connection with Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

—	Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Action brought on 16 March 2022 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-146/22)

(2022/C 198/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, D. Pérez de Lamo and S. Rating, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 16 July 2021 on State aid SA.57116–COVID-19: State loan guarantee and State loan for KLM; and,

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to adequately define the beneficiary by (i) considering that KLM was the sole beneficiary of the aid provided by the Netherlands and (ii) failing to ensure that the aid previously granted to Air France-KLM group could not benefit or ‘spill-over’ to KLM.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of EU Law that have underpinned the liberalisation of EU air transport since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, free provision of services and freedom of establishment).

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misused its powers and misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and its Temporary Framework, by (i) not addressing a serious disturbance in the Dutch economy and (ii) failing to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’).

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation despite the existence of ‘serious difficulties’ and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU.

Action brought on 18 March 2022 — Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret v EUIPO — Yadex International (pinar KURUYEMIŞ)

(Case T-147/22)

(2022/C 198/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret AŞ (Karatay/Konya, Turkey) (represented by: M. López Camba and A. Lyubomirova Geleva, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark pinar KURUYEMIŞ — Application for registration No 18 160 742

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2022 in Case R 1148/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision to the extent that it maintains the upholding of opposition B 3110022;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

—	order Yadex International GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

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

Action brought on 18 March 2022 — Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret v EUIPO — Yadex International (pinar KURUYEMIŞ)

(Case T-148/22)

(2022/C 198/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret AŞ (Karatay/Konya, Turkey) (represented by: M. López Camba and A. Lyubomirova Geleva, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark pinar KURUYEMIŞ — Application for registration No 18 161 596

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2022 in Case R 1149/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision to the extent that it maintains the upholding of opposition B003110050;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

—	Order Yadex International GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

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

Action brought on 21 March 2022 — Lilly Drogerie v EUIPO — Lillydoo (LILLYDOO kids)

(Case T-150/22)

(2022/C 198/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lilly Drogerie d.o.o. Belgrade (Stari Grad) (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: E. Bojinova-Miller, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lillydoo GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark LILLYDOO kids — International registration designating the European Union No. 1 495 352

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2022 in Joined Cases R 903/2021-2 and R 1298/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to the present action.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 18 March 2022 — General Wire Spring v EUIPO (GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS)

(Case T-151/22)

(2022/C 198/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: General Wire Spring Co. (McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: E. Carrillo, lawyer)

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 GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS — Application for registration No 1 577 530

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2022 in Case R 1452/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	uphold the present action;

—

annul the contested decision the Firth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO insofar as it dismisses the appeal filed by the applicant before it and failed to partially annul the EUIPO’s decision in relation to the refusal of registration of EUTM (IR) application No. 1 577 530 GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS for the objected goods in classes 7 and 9.

Pleas in law

—	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.

Action brought on 21 March 2022 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — XTG (XTG)

(Case T-153/22)

(2022/C 198/86)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Machei and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: XTG S.A. (Wrocław, Poland)

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: European Union figurative mark XTG — Application for registration No 18 120 223

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2021 in Case R 1387/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 21 March 2022 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — XTG (XTG)

(Case T-154/22)

(2022/C 198/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Machei and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: XTG S.A. (Wrocław, Poland)

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: European Union word mark XTG — Application for registration No 18 120 217

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2021 in Case R 1385/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 16 March 2022 — Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ v EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER)

(Case T-155/22)

(2022/C 198/88)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: ZAO Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Bürglen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stayer Ibérica, SA (Pinto, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark STAYER — European Union trade mark No 9 498 015

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2021 in Case R 931/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

Action brought on 23 March 2022 — Sanetview v EUIPO — 2boca2catering (Las Cebras)

(Case T-159/22)

(2022/C 198/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sanetview, SLU (Andorra la Vella, Andorra) (represented by: J. Gallego Jiménez, E. Sanz Valls, P. Bauzá Martínez, Y. Hernández Viñes and C. Marí Aguilar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 2boca2catering, SL (Seville, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Las Cebras — Application No 18 169 269

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2022 in Case R 1070/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	reject the opposition filed against the contested mark, by finding that the trade marks at issue can co-exist peacefully;

—	order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation EU 2017/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 25 March 2022 — Ortega Montero v Parliament

(Case T-161/22)

(2022/C 198/90)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maria Del Carmen Ortega Montero (Bruxelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

annul the decision of 20 May 2021, in so far as it rejects the requests contained in the letter of the applicant’s counsel of 19 January 2021 seeking the annulment of the amendment of the Staff Committee’s Rules of Procedure adopted on 10 November 2020, as well as the votes cast and decisions taken on the basis of that new version of the rules;

—	annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 21 December 2021 in so far as it rejects the complaint lodged by the applicant on 18 August 2021 against the decision rejecting her requests made by letter of 19 January 2021;

—	annul the new provisions of the Rules of Procedure 2020 and in particular the amendment of Article 22 adopted on 10 November 2020;

—	annul the vote by written procedure carried out in application of the new Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure 2020 and all decisions resulting therefrom, including the result of the last elections;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the amendment to the Rules of Procedure 2020 and its adoption on the morning of 10 November 2020 were unlawful, on the ground, first, that that amendment goes against the ratio legis of Article 21 of the Rules of Procedure and the democratic principles protected therein, secondly, that Article 22 itself was not complied with when it was adopted and implemented and, thirdly, that the texts adopted lack legal clarity.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness (ratione temporis) of the votes cast on 10 November 2020 on the basis of the new Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure, before its entry into force.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging the unlawfullness of the adoption of the written procedure applicable to the votes of the advisory and interinstitutional committees and delegations implemented in the afternoon of 10 November 2020.

Action brought on 24 March 2022 — OQ v Commission

(Case T-162/22)

(2022/C 198/91)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OQ (represented by: N. Maes and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	uphold the present action;

—	declare the present action admissible and well founded;

—	annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 19 May 2021 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of removal from post without reduction of pension rights;

—	annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 15 December 2021 rejecting the applicant’s complaint [confidential] (1) under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, on the ground that the disciplinary penalty imposed on the applicant was not proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct committed, taking into account the assessment criteria laid down in Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and did not take account of mitigating circumstances.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons. The applicant submits that the Commission did not follow the opinion of the Disciplinary Board, which recommended the penalty of downgrading within the meaning of Article 9(1)(f) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, without justifying its reasons for taking a different decision to the requisite legal standard.

---

(1)  Confidential data omitted.

Action brought on 29 March 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-165/22)

(2022/C 198/92)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 7 February 2022 to reject the applicant’s request for access to documents of the Commission by refusing to provide him with copies of all of the correspondence that it has exchanged, since 1 April 2020, with the company AstraZeneca plc or with its subsidiaries as well as with the Federal Chancellery of Germany or with the Federal Ministry of Health, relating to the company AstraZeneca plc or its subsidiaries, and in particular to the quantity of Covid-19 vaccines offered by AstraZeneca plc and its delivery deadlines;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law: The applicant has a right to access the European Commission documents at issue pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The refusal by the Commission infringes that provision.

2.

Second plea in law: The ground for exclusion laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s right of access. That ground for exclusion is limited in time and applies only to pending court proceedings and legal advice. The proceedings pending in Belgium against AstraZeneca under No 2021/48/C relate to a substantially different set of facts and have already been disposed of by the judgment of 18 June 2021.

3.	Third plea in law: The ground for exclusion laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s right of access. The public interest in the disclosure of personal data prevails.

4.

Fourth plea in law: The ground for exclusion laid down in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s right of access. The requested information does not contain any trade secrets within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2016/943, (2) as it is known and there have been no reasonable steps to keep it secret.

---

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

(2)  Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ 2016 L 157, p. 1).

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2022 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Rudolf Böckenholt (LLOYD’S)

(Case T-400/20) (1)

(2022/C 198/93)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.

Order of the General Court of 17 March 2022 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

(Case T-740/21) (1)

(2022/C 198/94)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.