# Official Journal C 112/27 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 112 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6627 March 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 112

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6627 March 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2023/C 112/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2023/C 112/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2023/C 112/02 | Case C-342/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 — European Commission v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI — Systematic and persistent exceeding of the limit values applicable to microparticles (PM10) in certain zones of Slovakia — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Period during which those limit values are exceeded as short as possible — Appropriate measures) | 2 |
| 2023/C 112/03 | Case C-402/21, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid and Others (Withdrawal of the right of residence of a Turkish worker): Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v S and E, C v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 — Articles 6 and 7 — Turkish nationals already integrated into the labour market of the host Member State and enjoying an associated right of residence — Decisions of national authorities withdrawing the right of residence of Turkish nationals who have been lawfully resident in the Member State concerned for more than 20 years on the ground that they constitute a present, genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society — Article 13 — Standstill clause — Article 14 — Justification — Grounds of public policy) | 3 |
| 2023/C 112/04 | Case C-453/21, X-FAB Dresden: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — X-FAB Dresden GmbH & Co. KG v FC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 38(3) — Data protection officer — Prohibition on dismissing data protection officer for performing his or her tasks — Requirement for functional independence — National legislation prohibiting the dismissal of a data protection officer without just cause — Article 38(6) — Conflict of interests — Criteria) | 4 |
| 2023/C 112/05 | Case C-482/21, Euler Hermes: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Euler Hermes SA Magyarországi Fióktelepe v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90 — Taxable amount — Reduction — Insurer paying compensation to policyholders for unpaid debts, including VAT — National legislation denying that insurer, as legal successor, the reduction of the taxable amount — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Principle of effectiveness) | 4 |
| 2023/C 112/06 | Case C-555/21, UniCredit Bank Austria: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UniCredit Bank Austria AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2014/17/EU — Credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property — Article 25(1) — Early repayment — Consumer’s right to a reduction in the total cost of the credit, consisting of the interest and the costs for the remaining duration of the contract — Article 4(13) — Concept of total cost of the credit to the consumer — Costs that are independent of the duration of the agreement) | 5 |
| 2023/C 112/07 | Case C-560/21, KISA: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — ZS v Zweckverband Kommunale Informationsverarbeitung Sachsen KISA, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 38(3) — Data protection officer — Prohibition on dismissing data protection officer for performing his or her tasks — Requirement for functional independence — National legislation prohibiting the dismissal of a data protection officer without just cause) | 6 |
| 2023/C 112/08 | Case C-635/21, LB GmbH (Air loungers): Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — LB GmbH v Hauptzollamt D (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Heading 9401 — Scope — Air sofas (air loungers)) | 6 |
| 2023/C 112/09 | Case C-668/21, Druvnieks: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — Druvnieks SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Support for rural development — Common rules — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 60 — Circumvention clause — Concept of artificially created conditions — Rejection of an application for aid in view of the situation of an undertaking belonging to the same proprietor as the undertaking which applied for the aid concerned) | 7 |
| 2023/C 112/10 | Case C-688/21, Confédération paysanne and Others (In vitro random mutagenesis): Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms — Directive 2001/18/EC — Article 3(1) — Point 1 of Annex I B — Scope — Exemptions — Techniques/methods of genetic modification which have conventionally been used and have a long safety record — In vitro random mutagenesis) | 8 |
| 2023/C 112/11 | Case C-708/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 — Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 — Article 2b and Article 9(2) — Decision 2010/788/CFSP — Article 3(2) and Article 9(2) — Applicant continuing to be included on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures — Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101) | 9 |
| 2023/C 112/12 | Case C-713/21, Finanzamt X (Supplies of the owner of a stable): Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — A v Finanzamt X (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c) — Concept of supplies of services for consideration — Single supply consisting in the stabling and training of horses as well as their participation in competitions — Remuneration by assigning half of the claim to prize money corresponding to the prizes won by horses in competitions) | 9 |
| 2023/C 112/13 | Case C-788/21, Global Gravity: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Esbjerg — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet Departementet v Global Gravity ApS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Classification of goods — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 7616 99 90 and 8609 00 90 — Tubular Transport Running System (TubeLock) — Meaning of container) | 10 |
| 2023/C 112/14 | Case C-53/22, VZ (Tenderer definitively excluded): Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — VZ v CA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 1(3) — Interest in bringing proceedings — Access to the review procedures — Grave professional misconduct on account of an anticompetitive agreement — Other operator definitively excluded from participating in the procurement procedure concerned due to failure to meet the minimum requirements) | 11 |
| 2023/C 112/15 | Joined Cases C-341/21 P and C-357/21 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — European Commission (C-341/21 P) v KM, European Parliament, Council of the European Union and Council of the European Union (C-357/21 P) v KM, European Commission, European Parliament (Appeal — Article 182 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Civil service — Pension — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 20 of Annex VIII — Grant of a survivor’s pension — Surviving spouse of a former official in receipt of a retirement pension — Marriage entered into after termination of the official’s service — Condition that the marriage must have lasted for at least five years at the date of the official’s death — Article 18 of Annex VIII — Marriage entered into before termination of the official’s service — Condition that the marriage must have lasted for at least one year only — Plea of illegality in respect of Article 20 of Annex VIII — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 20 — Principle of equal treatment — Article 21(1) — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Article 52(1) — No arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate differentiation in the light of the objective pursued by the EU legislature) | 12 |
| 2023/C 112/16 | Case C-82/22 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — Jean-François Jalkh v European Parliament (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union — Third paragraph of Article 9 — Decision to waive parliamentary immunity — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded) | 13 |
| 2023/C 112/17 | Case C-527/22 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2022 by Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 June 2022 in Case T-493/21, Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission | 13 |
| 2023/C 112/18 | Case C-649/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 14 October 2022 — XXX v Randstad Empleo, S. A., Ferrovial Servicios, S. A., Axa Seguros Generales S. A. de Seguros y Reaseguros | 14 |
| 2023/C 112/19 | Case C-673/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Sevilla (Spain) lodged on 27 October 2022 — C.C.C. v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) | 14 |
| 2023/C 112/20 | Case C-687/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 7 November 2022 — Julieta, Rogelio v Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria | 15 |
| 2023/C 112/21 | Case C-704/22 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2022 by the European Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-651/20, KL v EIB | 16 |
| 2023/C 112/22 | Case C-705/22 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2022 by the European Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-751/20, KL v EIB | 16 |
| 2023/C 112/23 | Case C-708/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 16 November 2022 — Asociación Española de Productores de Vacuno de Carne — ASOPROVAC v Administración General del Estado | 16 |
| 2023/C 112/24 | Case C-726/22 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2022 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 September 2022 in joined Cases T-371/20 and T-554/20 Pollinis France v Commission | 17 |
| 2023/C 112/25 | Case C-741/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of First Instance of Liège (Belgium) lodged on 2 December 2022 — Casino de Spa SA and Others | 18 |
| 2023/C 112/26 | Case C-747/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Bergamo (Italy) lodged on 7 December 2022 — KH v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) | 20 |
| 2023/C 112/27 | Case C-758/22, Bayerische Ärzteversorgung and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2022 — Bayerische Ärzteversorgung, Bayerische Architektenversorgung, Bayerische Apothekerversorgung, Bayerische Rechtsanwalts- und Steuerberaterversorgung, Bayerische Ingenieurversorgung-Bau mit Psychotherapeutenversorgung v Deutsche Bundesbank | 20 |
| 2023/C 112/28 | Case C-759/22, Sächsische Ärzteversorgung: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2022 — Sächsische Ärzteversorgung v Deutsche Bundesbank | 22 |
| 2023/C 112/29 | Case C-763/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal judiciaire de Marseille (France) lodged on 16 December 2022 — Procureur de la République v OP | 23 |
| 2023/C 112/30 | Case C-766/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2022 — WD v Allane SE | 23 |
| 2023/C 112/31 | Case C-771/22, HDI Global: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 19 December 2022 — Bundesarbeitskammer v HDI Global SE | 24 |
| 2023/C 112/32 | Case C-774/22, FTI Touristik: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2022 — JX v FTI Touristik GmbH | 25 |
| 2023/C 112/33 | Case C-778/22, flightright: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 December 2022 — flightright GmbH v TAP Portugal | 25 |
| 2023/C 112/34 | Case C-785/22 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2022 by Eulex Kosovo against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 October 2022 in Case T-242/17 RENV, SC v Eulex Kosovo | 26 |
| 2023/C 112/35 | Case C-35/23, Greislzel: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 25 January 2023 — Father v Mother | 27 |
| 2023/C 112/36 | Case C-44/23 P: Appeal brought on 27 January 2023 by Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 November 2022 in joined Cases T-316/14 RENV and T-148/19, PPK v Council | 27 |
| 2023/C 112/37 | Case C-304/22, PM: Order of the President of the Court of 28 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — PM v Senatsverwaltung für Justiz, Vielfalt und Antidiskriminierung, interested party: CM | 29 |
| | General Court |
| 2023/C 112/38 | Case T-295/20: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — Aquind and Others v Commission (Energy — Trans-European energy infrastructure — Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 — Delegated regulation amending the list of projects of common interest — Second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU — Refusal of a Member State to give its approval to a proposed electricity interconnector with a view to granting the status of a project of common interest — Non-inclusion by the Commission of the project in the amended list — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of good administration — Equal treatment — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Article 10 of the Energy Charter Treaty) | 30 |
| 2023/C 112/39 | Case T-522/20: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — Carpatair v Commission (State aid — Aviation sector — Measures implemented by Romania in favour of Timișoara Airport — Measures implemented by Timișoara Airport in favour of Wizz Air and airlines using that airport — Decision finding, in part, that there was no State aid in favour of Timișoara Airport and airlines using that airport — Airport charges — Action for annulment — Regulatory act — Individual concern — Substantial effect on competitive position — Direct concern — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Article 107(1) TFEU — Selective nature — Advantage — Private operator test) | 31 |
| 2023/C 112/40 | Case T-538/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 –PBL and WA v Commission (State aid — Aid to a professional football club — Refusal to register a complaint lodged by one of the members of a football club — Status of interested party) | 32 |
| 2023/C 112/41 | Case T-787/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — UniSkin v EUIPO — Unicskin (UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild — Earlier national figurative mark UNICSKIN YOUR EFFECTIVE SOLUTION — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 32 |
| 2023/C 112/42 | Case T-24/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — Bensoussan v EUIPO — Lulu’s Fashion Lounge (LOULOU STUDIO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union word mark LOULOU STUDIO — Earlier international word mark LULU’S — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 33 |
| 2023/C 112/43 | Case T-141/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — Sport1 v EUIPO — SFR (SFR SPORT1) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark SFR SPORT 1 — Earlier national and international figurative marks sport1 — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character acquired through use — Interdependence between factors) | 34 |
| 2023/C 112/44 | Case T-778/21: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2023 — Folkertsma v Commission (Action for damages — Contract for technical assistance for support to Bangsamoro transition (Subatra) — Commission’s request to have the applicant replaced as expert — Termination of the contract between the successful tenderer and the applicant — Non-contractual liability — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Causal link — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 34 |
| 2023/C 112/45 | Case T-81/22: Order of the General Court of 7 February 2023 — Euranimi v Commission (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Act not of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility) | 35 |
| 2023/C 112/46 | Case T-117/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 1 February 2023 — Grodno Azot and Khimvolokno Plant v Council (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 36 |
| 2023/C 112/47 | Case T-631/22: Order of the General Court of 30 January 2023 — Beijing Unicorn Technology v EUIPO — WD Plus (Device of a circle with two sharp points) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 36 |
| 2023/C 112/48 | Case T-36/23: Action brought on 25 January 2023 — Stevi and The New York Times v Commission | 37 |
| 2023/C 112/49 | Case T-41/23: Action brought on 3 February 2023 — Pollen + Grace v EUIPO — Grace Foods (POLLEN + GRACE) | 38 |
| 2023/C 112/50 | Case T-46/23: Action brought on 6 February 2023 — Kaili v Parliament and EPPO | 39 |
| 2023/C 112/51 | Case T-47/23: Action brought on 7 February 2023 — Vinet Miłosz Jeleń v EUIPO — The Animal Store, Food and Accessories (WILD INSPIRED) | 40 |
| 2023/C 112/52 | Case T-52/23: Action brought on 8 February 2023 — Olive Line International v EUIPO — Santa Rita Harinas (SANTARRITA) | 40 |
| 2023/C 112/53 | Case T-53/23: Action brought on 8 February 2023 — TVR Automotive v EUIPO — TVR Italia (TVR) | 41 |
| 2023/C 112/54 | Case T-55/23: Action brought on 8 February 2023 — Tiendanimal/EUIPO — Salvana Tiernahrung (SALVAJE) | 42 |
| 2023/C 112/55 | Case T-56/23: Action brought on 8 February 2023 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Ahlberg-Dollarstore (A’PEAL) | 43 |
| 2023/C 112/56 | Case T-57/23: Action brought on 9 February 2023 — Goldair Tourism v EUIPO — Gkolemis Etaireia (Goldair Tourism) | 43 |
| 2023/C 112/57 | Case T-58/23: Action brought on 9 February 2023 — Supermac’s v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (BIG MAC) | 44 |
| 2023/C 112/58 | Case T-59/23: Action brought on 10 February 2023 — DEC Technologies v EUIPO — Tehnoexport (DEC FLEXIBLE TECHNOLOGIES) | 45 |
| 2023/C 112/59 | Case T-60/23: Action brought on 9 February 2023 — Ilovepdf v EUIPO (ILOVEPDF) | 46 |
| 2023/C 112/60 | Case T-61/23: Action brought on 10 February 2023 — Ona Investigación v EUIPO — Formdiet (BIOPÔLE) | 46 |
| 2023/C 112/61 | Case T-64/23: Action brought on 13 February 2023 — Aesculap v EUIPO — Aeneas (AESKUCARE Food Intolerance) | 47 |
| 2023/C 112/62 | Case T-65/23: Action brought on 13 February 2023 — Aesculap v EUIPO — Aeneas (AESKUCARE) | 48 |
| 2023/C 112/63 | Case T-66/23: Action brought on 13 February 2023 — Aesculap v EUIPO — Aeneas (AESKUCARE Allergy) | 48 |
| 2023/C 112/64 | Case T-68/23: Action brought on 10 February 2023 — DEC Technologies v EUIPO — Tehnoexport (Representation of a square with curves) | 49 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2023/C 112/02

Case C-342/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 — European Commission v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI — Systematic and persistent exceeding of the limit values applicable to microparticles (PM10) in certain zones of Slovakia — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Period during which those limit values are exceeded as short as possible — Appropriate measures)

2

2023/C 112/03

Case C-402/21, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid and Others (Withdrawal of the right of residence of a Turkish worker): Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v S and E, C v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 — Articles 6 and 7 — Turkish nationals already integrated into the labour market of the host Member State and enjoying an associated right of residence — Decisions of national authorities withdrawing the right of residence of Turkish nationals who have been lawfully resident in the Member State concerned for more than 20 years on the ground that they constitute a present, genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society — Article 13 — Standstill clause — Article 14 — Justification — Grounds of public policy)

3

2023/C 112/04

Case C-453/21, X-FAB Dresden: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — X-FAB Dresden GmbH & Co. KG v FC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 38(3) — Data protection officer — Prohibition on dismissing data protection officer for performing his or her tasks — Requirement for functional independence — National legislation prohibiting the dismissal of a data protection officer without just cause — Article 38(6) — Conflict of interests — Criteria)

4

2023/C 112/05

Case C-482/21, Euler Hermes: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Euler Hermes SA Magyarországi Fióktelepe v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90 — Taxable amount — Reduction — Insurer paying compensation to policyholders for unpaid debts, including VAT — National legislation denying that insurer, as legal successor, the reduction of the taxable amount — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Principle of effectiveness)

4

2023/C 112/06

Case C-555/21, UniCredit Bank Austria: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UniCredit Bank Austria AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2014/17/EU — Credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property — Article 25(1) — Early repayment — Consumer’s right to a reduction in the total cost of the credit, consisting of the interest and the costs for the remaining duration of the contract — Article 4(13) — Concept of total cost of the credit to the consumer — Costs that are independent of the duration of the agreement)

5

2023/C 112/07

Case C-560/21, KISA: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — ZS v Zweckverband Kommunale Informationsverarbeitung Sachsen KISA, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 38(3) — Data protection officer — Prohibition on dismissing data protection officer for performing his or her tasks — Requirement for functional independence — National legislation prohibiting the dismissal of a data protection officer without just cause)

6

2023/C 112/08

Case C-635/21, LB GmbH (Air loungers): Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — LB GmbH v Hauptzollamt D (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Heading 9401 — Scope — Air sofas (air loungers))

6

2023/C 112/09

Case C-668/21, Druvnieks: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — Druvnieks SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Support for rural development — Common rules — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 60 — Circumvention clause — Concept of artificially created conditions — Rejection of an application for aid in view of the situation of an undertaking belonging to the same proprietor as the undertaking which applied for the aid concerned)

7

2023/C 112/10

Case C-688/21, Confédération paysanne and Others (In vitro random mutagenesis): Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms — Directive 2001/18/EC — Article 3(1) — Point 1 of Annex I B — Scope — Exemptions — Techniques/methods of genetic modification which have conventionally been used and have a long safety record — In vitro random mutagenesis)

random mutagenesis

8

2023/C 112/11

Case C-708/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 — Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 — Article 2b and Article 9(2) — Decision 2010/788/CFSP — Article 3(2) and Article 9(2) — Applicant continuing to be included on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures — Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101)

9

2023/C 112/12

Case C-713/21, Finanzamt X (Supplies of the owner of a stable): Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — A v Finanzamt X (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c) — Concept of supplies of services for consideration — Single supply consisting in the stabling and training of horses as well as their participation in competitions — Remuneration by assigning half of the claim to prize money corresponding to the prizes won by horses in competitions)

9

2023/C 112/13

Case C-788/21, Global Gravity: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Esbjerg — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet Departementet v Global Gravity ApS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Classification of goods — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 7616 99 90 and 8609 00 90 — Tubular Transport Running System (TubeLock) — Meaning of container)

10

2023/C 112/14

Case C-53/22, VZ (Tenderer definitively excluded): Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — VZ v CA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 1(3) — Interest in bringing proceedings — Access to the review procedures — Grave professional misconduct on account of an anticompetitive agreement — Other operator definitively excluded from participating in the procurement procedure concerned due to failure to meet the minimum requirements)

11

2023/C 112/15

Joined Cases C-341/21 P and C-357/21 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — European Commission (C-341/21 P) v KM, European Parliament, Council of the European Union and Council of the European Union (C-357/21 P) v KM, European Commission, European Parliament (Appeal — Article 182 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Civil service — Pension — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 20 of Annex VIII — Grant of a survivor’s pension — Surviving spouse of a former official in receipt of a retirement pension — Marriage entered into after termination of the official’s service — Condition that the marriage must have lasted for at least five years at the date of the official’s death — Article 18 of Annex VIII — Marriage entered into before termination of the official’s service — Condition that the marriage must have lasted for at least one year only — Plea of illegality in respect of Article 20 of Annex VIII — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 20 — Principle of equal treatment — Article 21(1) — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Article 52(1) — No arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate differentiation in the light of the objective pursued by the EU legislature)

12

2023/C 112/16

Case C-82/22 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — Jean-François Jalkh v European Parliament (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union — Third paragraph of Article 9 — Decision to waive parliamentary immunity — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

13

2023/C 112/17

Case C-527/22 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2022 by Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 June 2022 in Case T-493/21, Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission

13

2023/C 112/18

Case C-649/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 14 October 2022 — XXX v Randstad Empleo, S. A., Ferrovial Servicios, S. A., Axa Seguros Generales S. A. de Seguros y Reaseguros

14

2023/C 112/19

Case C-673/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Sevilla (Spain) lodged on 27 October 2022 — C.C.C. v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

o

14

2023/C 112/20

Case C-687/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 7 November 2022 — Julieta, Rogelio v Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria

15

2023/C 112/21

Case C-704/22 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2022 by the European Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-651/20, KL v EIB

16

2023/C 112/22

Case C-705/22 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2022 by the European Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-751/20, KL v EIB

16

2023/C 112/23

Case C-708/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 16 November 2022 — Asociación Española de Productores de Vacuno de Carne — ASOPROVAC v Administración General del Estado

16

2023/C 112/24

Case C-726/22 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2022 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 September 2022 in joined Cases T-371/20 and T-554/20 Pollinis France v Commission

17

2023/C 112/25

Case C-741/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of First Instance of Liège (Belgium) lodged on 2 December 2022 — Casino de Spa SA and Others

18

2023/C 112/26

Case C-747/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Bergamo (Italy) lodged on 7 December 2022 — KH v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

20

2023/C 112/27

Case C-758/22, Bayerische Ärzteversorgung and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2022 — Bayerische Ärzteversorgung, Bayerische Architektenversorgung, Bayerische Apothekerversorgung, Bayerische Rechtsanwalts- und Steuerberaterversorgung, Bayerische Ingenieurversorgung-Bau mit Psychotherapeutenversorgung v Deutsche Bundesbank

20

2023/C 112/28

Case C-759/22, Sächsische Ärzteversorgung: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2022 — Sächsische Ärzteversorgung v Deutsche Bundesbank

22

2023/C 112/29

Case C-763/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal judiciaire de Marseille (France) lodged on 16 December 2022 — Procureur de la République v OP

23

2023/C 112/30

Case C-766/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2022 — WD v Allane SE

23

2023/C 112/31

Case C-771/22, HDI Global: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 19 December 2022 — Bundesarbeitskammer v HDI Global SE

24

2023/C 112/32

Case C-774/22, FTI Touristik: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2022 — JX v FTI Touristik GmbH

25

2023/C 112/33

Case C-778/22, flightright: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 December 2022 — flightright GmbH v TAP Portugal

25

2023/C 112/34

Case C-785/22 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2022 by Eulex Kosovo against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 October 2022 in Case T-242/17 RENV, SC v Eulex Kosovo

26

2023/C 112/35

Case C-35/23, Greislzel: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 25 January 2023 — Father v Mother

27

2023/C 112/36

Case C-44/23 P: Appeal brought on 27 January 2023 by Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 November 2022 in joined Cases T-316/14 RENV and T-148/19, PPK v Council

27

2023/C 112/37

Case C-304/22, PM: Order of the President of the Court of 28 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — PM v Senatsverwaltung für Justiz, Vielfalt und Antidiskriminierung, interested party: CM

interested party:

29

General Court

2023/C 112/38

Case T-295/20: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — Aquind and Others v Commission (Energy — Trans-European energy infrastructure — Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 — Delegated regulation amending the list of projects of common interest — Second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU — Refusal of a Member State to give its approval to a proposed electricity interconnector with a view to granting the status of a project of common interest — Non-inclusion by the Commission of the project in the amended list — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of good administration — Equal treatment — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Article 10 of the Energy Charter Treaty)

30

2023/C 112/39

Case T-522/20: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — Carpatair v Commission (State aid — Aviation sector — Measures implemented by Romania in favour of Timișoara Airport — Measures implemented by Timișoara Airport in favour of Wizz Air and airlines using that airport — Decision finding, in part, that there was no State aid in favour of Timișoara Airport and airlines using that airport — Airport charges — Action for annulment — Regulatory act — Individual concern — Substantial effect on competitive position — Direct concern — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Article 107(1) TFEU — Selective nature — Advantage — Private operator test)

31

2023/C 112/40

Case T-538/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 –PBL and WA v Commission (State aid — Aid to a professional football club — Refusal to register a complaint lodged by one of the members of a football club — Status of interested party)

32

2023/C 112/41

Case T-787/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — UniSkin v EUIPO — Unicskin (UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild — Earlier national figurative mark UNICSKIN YOUR EFFECTIVE SOLUTION — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

32

2023/C 112/42

Case T-24/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — Bensoussan v EUIPO — Lulu’s Fashion Lounge (LOULOU STUDIO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union word mark LOULOU STUDIO — Earlier international word mark LULU’S — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

33

2023/C 112/43

Case T-141/22: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — Sport1 v EUIPO — SFR (SFR SPORT1) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark SFR SPORT 1 — Earlier national and international figurative marks sport1 — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character acquired through use — Interdependence between factors)

34

2023/C 112/44

Case T-778/21: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2023 — Folkertsma v Commission (Action for damages — Contract for technical assistance for support to Bangsamoro transition (Subatra) — Commission’s request to have the applicant replaced as expert — Termination of the contract between the successful tenderer and the applicant — Non-contractual liability — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Causal link — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

34

2023/C 112/45

Case T-81/22: Order of the General Court of 7 February 2023 — Euranimi v Commission (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Act not of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

35

2023/C 112/46

Case T-117/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 1 February 2023 — Grodno Azot and Khimvolokno Plant v Council (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

36

2023/C 112/47

Case T-631/22: Order of the General Court of 30 January 2023 — Beijing Unicorn Technology v EUIPO — WD Plus (Device of a circle with two sharp points) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

36

2023/C 112/48

Case T-36/23: Action brought on 25 January 2023 — Stevi and The New York Times v Commission

37

2023/C 112/49

Case T-41/23: Action brought on 3 February 2023 — Pollen + Grace v EUIPO — Grace Foods (POLLEN + GRACE)

38

2023/C 112/50

Case T-46/23: Action brought on 6 February 2023 — Kaili v Parliament and EPPO

39

2023/C 112/51

Case T-47/23: Action brought on 7 February 2023 — Vinet Miłosz Jeleń v EUIPO — The Animal Store, Food and Accessories (WILD INSPIRED)

40

2023/C 112/52

Case T-52/23: Action brought on 8 February 2023 — Olive Line International v EUIPO — Santa Rita Harinas (SANTARRITA)

40

2023/C 112/53

Case T-53/23: Action brought on 8 February 2023 — TVR Automotive v EUIPO — TVR Italia (TVR)

41

2023/C 112/54

Case T-55/23: Action brought on 8 February 2023 — Tiendanimal/EUIPO — Salvana Tiernahrung (SALVAJE)

42

2023/C 112/55

Case T-56/23: Action brought on 8 February 2023 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Ahlberg-Dollarstore (A’PEAL)

43

2023/C 112/56

Case T-57/23: Action brought on 9 February 2023 — Goldair Tourism v EUIPO — Gkolemis Etaireia (Goldair Tourism)

43

2023/C 112/57

Case T-58/23: Action brought on 9 February 2023 — Supermac’s v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (BIG MAC)

44

2023/C 112/58

Case T-59/23: Action brought on 10 February 2023 — DEC Technologies v EUIPO — Tehnoexport (DEC FLEXIBLE TECHNOLOGIES)

45

2023/C 112/59

Case T-60/23: Action brought on 9 February 2023 — Ilovepdf v EUIPO (ILOVEPDF)

46

2023/C 112/60

Case T-61/23: Action brought on 10 February 2023 — Ona Investigación v EUIPO — Formdiet (BIOPÔLE)

46

2023/C 112/61

Case T-64/23: Action brought on 13 February 2023 — Aesculap v EUIPO — Aeneas (AESKUCARE Food Intolerance)

47

2023/C 112/62

Case T-65/23: Action brought on 13 February 2023 — Aesculap v EUIPO — Aeneas (AESKUCARE)

48

2023/C 112/63

Case T-66/23: Action brought on 13 February 2023 — Aesculap v EUIPO — Aeneas (AESKUCARE Allergy)

48

2023/C 112/64

Case T-68/23: Action brought on 10 February 2023 — DEC Technologies v EUIPO — Tehnoexport (Representation of a square with curves)

49

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/1

---

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

(2023/C 112/01)

Last publication

OJ C 104, 20.3.2023

Past publications

OJ C 94, 13.3.2023

OJ C 83, 6.3.2023

OJ C 71, 27.2.2023

OJ C 63, 20.2.2023

OJ C 54, 13.2.2023

OJ C 45, 6.2.2023

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-342/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) and Annex XI - Systematic and persistent exceeding of the limit values applicable to microparticles (PM10) in certain zones of Slovakia - Article 23(1) - Annex XV - Period during which those limit values are exceeded ‘as short as possible’ - Appropriate measures)

(2023/C 112/02)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: S. Ondrášiková, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by systematically and persistently exceeding the daily limit value applicable to microparticles (PM10) since 2005 in zone SKBB01 Banská Bystrica Region and, with the exception of years 2009, 2015 and 2016, in the agglomeration SKKO01.1 Košice, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, read in conjunction with Annex XI thereto; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by systematically and persistently exceeding the daily limit value applicable to microparticles (PM10) since 2005 in zone SKBB01 Banská Bystrica Region and, with the exception of years 2009, 2015 and 2016, in the agglomeration SKKO01.1 Košice, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, read in conjunction with Annex XI thereto;

| 2. | Declares that, by failing to lay down appropriate measures in its air quality plans so that the period during which that limit value is exceeded can be kept as short as possible, in that zone and that agglomeration, and in zone SKKO02, Košice Region, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1), second subparagraph, of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex XV thereto; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that, by failing to lay down appropriate measures in its air quality plans so that the period during which that limit value is exceeded can be kept as short as possible, in that zone and that agglomeration, and in zone SKKO02, Košice Region, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1), second subparagraph, of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex XV thereto;

| 3. | Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v S and E, C v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-402/21, (1) Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid and Others (Withdrawal of the right of residence of a Turkish worker))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 - Articles 6 and 7 - Turkish nationals already integrated into the labour market of the host Member State and enjoying an associated right of residence - Decisions of national authorities withdrawing the right of residence of Turkish nationals who have been lawfully resident in the Member State concerned for more than 20 years on the ground that they constitute a present, genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society - Article 13 - Standstill clause - Article 14 - Justification - Grounds of public policy)

(2023/C 112/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, E, C

Defendants: S, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey
  must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by Turkish nationals who hold the rights referred to in Article 6 or Article 7 of that decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey

must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by Turkish nationals who hold the rights referred to in Article 6 or Article 7 of that decision.

| 2. | Article 14 of Decision No 1/80
  must be interpreted as meaning that Turkish nationals who, according to the competent national authorities of the Member State concerned, constitute a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the interests of society, may rely on Article 13 of that decision in order to oppose a ‘new restriction’, within the meaning of that provision, from being applied to them allowing those authorities to terminate their right of residence on grounds of public policy. Such a restriction may be justified under Article 14 of that decision in so far as it is suitable for securing the attainment of the objective of protecting public policy pursued and it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 14 of Decision No 1/80

must be interpreted as meaning that Turkish nationals who, according to the competent national authorities of the Member State concerned, constitute a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the interests of society, may rely on Article 13 of that decision in order to oppose a ‘new restriction’, within the meaning of that provision, from being applied to them allowing those authorities to terminate their right of residence on grounds of public policy. Such a restriction may be justified under Article 14 of that decision in so far as it is suitable for securing the attainment of the objective of protecting public policy pursued and it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — X-FAB Dresden GmbH & Co. KG v FC

(Case C-453/21, (1) X-FAB Dresden)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 38(3) - Data protection officer - Prohibition on dismissing data protection officer for performing his or her tasks - Requirement for functional independence - National legislation prohibiting the dismissal of a data protection officer without just cause - Article 38(6) - Conflict of interests - Criteria)

(2023/C 112/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X-FAB Dresden GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: FC

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The second sentence of Article 38(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 not precluding national legislation which provides that a controller or a processor may dismiss a data protection officer who is a member of staff of that controller or processor solely where there is just cause, even if the dismissal is not related to the performance of that officer’s tasks, in so far as such legislation does not undermine the achievement of the objectives of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The second sentence of Article 38(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 not precluding national legislation which provides that a controller or a processor may dismiss a data protection officer who is a member of staff of that controller or processor solely where there is just cause, even if the dismissal is not related to the performance of that officer’s tasks, in so far as such legislation does not undermine the achievement of the objectives of that regulation.

| 2. | Article 38(6) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that a ‘conflict of interests’, as provided for in that provision, may exist where a data protection officer is entrusted with other tasks or duties, which would result in him or her determining the objectives and methods of processing personal data on the part of the controller or its processor, which is a matter for the national court to determine, case by case, on the basis of an assessment of all the relevant circumstances, in particular the organisational structure of the controller or its processor and in the light of all the applicable rules, including any policies of the controller or its processor. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 38(6) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that a ‘conflict of interests’, as provided for in that provision, may exist where a data protection officer is entrusted with other tasks or duties, which would result in him or her determining the objectives and methods of processing personal data on the part of the controller or its processor, which is a matter for the national court to determine, case by case, on the basis of an assessment of all the relevant circumstances, in particular the organisational structure of the controller or its processor and in the light of all the applicable rules, including any policies of the controller or its processor.

---

(1)  OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Euler Hermes SA Magyarországi Fióktelepe v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-482/21, (1) Euler Hermes)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90 - Taxable amount - Reduction - Insurer paying compensation to policyholders for unpaid debts, including VAT - National legislation denying that insurer, as legal successor, the reduction of the taxable amount - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Principle of effectiveness)

(2023/C 112/05)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Euler Hermes SA Magyarországi Fióktelepe

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, and the principle of fiscal neutrality

must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which the reduction of the taxable amount in the event of non-payment, provided for in that provision, is not applied to an insurer who, under a contract for the insurance of trade debts, pays the insured person, by way of compensation following non-payment of a debt, part of the taxable amount of the taxable transaction at issue including value added tax, even though, pursuant to that contract, that part of the debt together with all associated rights have been assigned to that insurer.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UniCredit Bank Austria AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

(Case C-555/21, (1) UniCredit Bank Austria)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2014/17/EU - Credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property - Article 25(1) - Early repayment - Consumer’s right to a reduction in the total cost of the credit, consisting of the interest and the costs for the remaining duration of the contract - Article 4(13) - Concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ - Costs that are independent of the duration of the agreement)

(2023/C 112/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UniCredit Bank Austria AG

Defendant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that the consumer’s right to a reduction in the total cost of the credit in the event of early repayment of that credit includes only interest and costs which are dependent on the duration of the contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — ZS v Zweckverband ‘Kommunale Informationsverarbeitung Sachsen’ KISA, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts

(Case C-560/21, KISA) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 38(3) - Data protection officer - Prohibition on dismissing data protection officer for performing his or her tasks - Requirement for functional independence - National legislation prohibiting the dismissal of a data protection officer without just cause)

(2023/C 112/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZS

Defendant: Zweckverband ‘Kommunale Informationsverarbeitung Sachsen’ KISA, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 38(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 not precluding national legislation which provides that a controller or a processor may dismiss a data protection officer who is a member of staff of that controller or processor solely where there is just cause, even if the dismissal is not related to the performance of that officer’s tasks, in so far as such legislation does not undermine the achievement of the objectives of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — LB GmbH v Hauptzollamt D

(Case C-635/21, (1) LB GmbH (Air loungers))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Heading 9401 - Scope - Air sofas (‘air loungers’))

(2023/C 112/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LB GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt D

Operative part of the judgment

Heading 9401 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016, must be interpreted as not covering a type of ‘air sofa’ consisting of an inner tube made of plastic film and an outer covering made of textile fabric.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ‘Druvnieks’ SIA

(Case C-668/21, (1) Druvnieks)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Support for rural development - Common rules - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 60 - Circumvention clause - Concept of ‘artificially created conditions’ - Rejection of an application for aid in view of the situation of an undertaking belonging to the same proprietor as the undertaking which applied for the aid concerned)

(2023/C 112/09)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Druvnieks’ SIA

Intervener: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008
  must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which the conditions for rejecting an application for aid under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), laid down by national rules, are satisfied not by the applicant for the aid concerned but by another undertaking belonging to the same proprietor as that applicant, whose agricultural activity the applicant has taken over, is capable of falling within the concept of ‘artificially created conditions’, within the meaning of that article, provided that, first, it is apparent from a combination of objective circumstances that, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by those rules, the objective of the sectoral agricultural legislation has not been achieved and, second, it is established that there was the intention to obtain an advantage from European Union rules by artificially creating the conditions laid down to obtain that advantage. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008

must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which the conditions for rejecting an application for aid under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), laid down by national rules, are satisfied not by the applicant for the aid concerned but by another undertaking belonging to the same proprietor as that applicant, whose agricultural activity the applicant has taken over, is capable of falling within the concept of ‘artificially created conditions’, within the meaning of that article, provided that, first, it is apparent from a combination of objective circumstances that, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by those rules, the objective of the sectoral agricultural legislation has not been achieved and, second, it is established that there was the intention to obtain an advantage from European Union rules by artificially creating the conditions laid down to obtain that advantage.

| 2) | Article 60 of Regulation No 1306/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied even though no administrative penalty has been imposed on the applicant for the aid concerned or its proprietor. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 60 of Regulation No 1306/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied even though no administrative penalty has been imposed on the applicant for the aid concerned or its proprietor.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

(Case C-688/21, (1) Confédération paysanne and Others (In vitro random mutagenesis))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms - Directive 2001/18/EC - Article 3(1) - Point 1 of Annex I B - Scope - Exemptions - Techniques/methods of genetic modification which have conventionally been used and have a long safety record - In vitro random mutagenesis)

(2023/C 112/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confédération paysanne, Réseau Semences Paysannes, Les Amis de la Terre France, Collectif Vigilance OGM et Pesticides 16, Vigilance OG2M, CSFV 49, OGM: dangers, Vigilance OGM 33, Fédération Nature et Progrès

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

Intervening party: Fédération française des producteurs d’oléagineux et de protéagineux

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, read in conjunction with point 1 of Annex I B to that directive and in the light of recital 17 of that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that organisms obtained through the application of a technique/method of mutagenesis which is based on the same processes of modification, by the mutagenic agent, of the genetic material of the organism concerned as a technique/method of mutagenesis which has conventionally been used in a number of applications and has a long safety record, but which differs from that second technique/method of mutagenesis by virtue of other characteristics, shall, in principle, be excluded from the exemption laid down in that provision, provided that it is established that those characteristics are likely to lead to modifications of the genetic material of that organism which differ, by their nature or by the rate at which they occur, from those obtained by the application of that second technique/method of mutagenesis. However, the effects inherent in in vitro cultures do not, as such, justify the exclusion from that exemption of organisms obtained by the in vitro application of a technique/method of mutagenesis which has conventionally been used in a number of in vivo applications and has a long safety record with regard to those applications.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 21.1.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 — Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union

(Case C-708/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 - Article 2b and Article 9(2) - Decision 2010/788/CFSP - Article 3(2) and Article 9(2) - Applicant continuing to be included on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures - Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101)

(2023/C 112/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Évariste Boshab (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Évariste Boshab to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Évariste Boshab to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — A v Finanzamt X

(Case C-713/21, (1) Finanzamt X (Supplies of the owner of a stable))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Concept of ‘supplies of services for consideration’ - Single supply consisting in the stabling and training of horses as well as their participation in competitions - Remuneration by assigning half of the claim to prize money corresponding to the prizes won by horses in competitions)

(2023/C 112/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Finanzamt X

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as meaning that:

a single supply provided by the owner of a competition horse training stable, consisting in the stabling and training of horses and the participation of horses in competitions constitutes a supply of services for consideration, within the meaning of that provision, where the horse owner remunerates that supply by assigning half of the claim to prize money to which he or she is entitled in the event of successful participation in a competition.

---

(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Esbjerg — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet Departementet v Global Gravity ApS

(Case C-788/21, (1) Global Gravity)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Classification of goods - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 7616 99 90 and 8609 00 90 - Tubular Transport Running System (TubeLock) - Meaning of ‘container’)

(2023/C 112/13)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Retten i Esbjerg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet Departementet

Defendant: Global Gravity ApS

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 8609 00 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013,

must be interpreted as not covering a device for transporting pipes that consists of a number of aluminium lifting profiles between two of which the pipes to be transported are placed perpendicularly, those two lifting profiles being linked together by two steel lifting poles that are equipped with eyelets, and on top of which additional pipes may then be placed in the same way until the load comprises the number of pipes to be transported, the load then being completed by the attachment of steel slings to the lifting poles at the four corners of the load (by passing them through the said eyelets) in order to facilitate handling of the load, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 7.3.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — VZ v CA

(Case C-53/22, (1) VZ (Tenderer definitively excluded))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 1(3) - Interest in bringing proceedings - Access to the review procedures - Grave professional misconduct on account of an anticompetitive agreement - Other operator definitively excluded from participating in the procurement procedure concerned due to failure to meet the minimum requirements)

(2023/C 112/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VZ

Defendant: CA

Intervening parties: RT, BO, Regione Lombardia, Regione Liguria

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014

must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which does not allow an operator which is prevented from participating in a procedure for the award of a public contract on the ground that it did not satisfy one of the conditions for participation laid down in the call for tenders concerned, and whose action against the inclusion of that condition in that call for tenders was rejected by a decision which acquired the force of res judicata, to challenge the refusal of the contracting authority concerned to annul the decision awarding that public contract following confirmation by a court decision that the successful tenderer and all the other tenderers had participated in an agreement constituting an infringement of the competition rules in the same sector as that concerned by the procedure for the award of that public contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/12

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — European Commission (C-341/21 P) v KM, European Parliament, Council of the European Union and Council of the European Union (C-357/21 P) v KM, European Commission, European Parliament

(Joined Cases C-341/21 P and C-357/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 182 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Civil service - Pension - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 20 of Annex VIII - Grant of a survivor’s pension - Surviving spouse of a former official in receipt of a retirement pension - Marriage entered into after termination of the official’s service - Condition that the marriage must have lasted for at least five years at the date of the official’s death - Article 18 of Annex VIII - Marriage entered into before termination of the official’s service - Condition that the marriage must have lasted for at least one year only - Plea of illegality in respect of Article 20 of Annex VIII - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 20 - Principle of equal treatment - Article 21(1) - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Article 52(1) - No arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate differentiation in the light of the objective pursued by the EU legislature)

(2023/C 112/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

(Case C-341/21 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: KM (represented by: M. Müller-Trawinski, Rechtsanwalt), European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge, acting as Agent), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Alver and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

(Case C-357/21 P)

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Alver and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: KM (represented by: M. Müller-Trawinski, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and B. Mongin, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 March 2021, KM v Commission (T-374/20, not published, EU:T:2021:162); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 March 2021, KM v Commission (T-374/20, not published, EU:T:2021:162);

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought by KM in Case T-374/20; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought by KM in Case T-374/20;

| 3. | Orders KM to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and the Council of the European Union in Case T-374/20 as well as in Cases C-341/21 P and C-357/21 P; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders KM to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and the Council of the European Union in Case T-374/20 as well as in Cases C-341/21 P and C-357/21 P;

| 4. | Orders the European Parliament to bear the costs incurred in Case T-374/20. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Parliament to bear the costs incurred in Case T-374/20.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.8.2022.

OJ C 310, 2.8.2021.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/13

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — Jean-François Jalkh v European Parliament

(Case C-82/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union - Third paragraph of Article 9 - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2023/C 112/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Jean-François Jalkh (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: A. Dumbrăvan and N. Lorenz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Jean-François Jalkh shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Jean-François Jalkh shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/13

---

Appeal brought on 6 August 2022 by Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 June 2022 in Case T-493/21, Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission

(Case C-527/22 P)

(2023/C 112/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior SL (represented by: D. Luff, avocat, and R. Sciaudone, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 14 February 2023, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed as manifestly unfounded and that Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior SL should bear its own costs.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 14 October 2022 — XXX v Randstad Empleo, S. A., Ferrovial Servicios, S. A., Axa Seguros Generales S. A. de Seguros y Reaseguros

(Case C-649/22)

(2023/C 112/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: XXX

Respondents: Randstad Empleo, S. A., Ferrovial Servicios, S. A., Axa Seguros Generales S. A. de Seguros y Reaseguros

Question referred

Must Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 3[1](f) and Article 5 of Directive 2008/104 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as precluding a case-law interpretation of Spanish legislation according to which compensation for a temporary agency worker whose employment contract has been terminated following a declaration of total permanent incapacity resulting from an accident at work sustained at the user undertaking is excluded from the concept of ‘basic working and employment conditions’?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 9).

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Sevilla (Spain) lodged on 27 October 2022 — C.C.C. v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-673/22)

(2023/C 112/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Sevilla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C.C.C.

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

Questions referred

The Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Sevilla decides to:

Refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union, under Article 267 TFEU, the following questions for a preliminary ruling, concerning the interpretation of Article 5 and recital 37 of Directive (EU) 2019/1158 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on work-life balance for parents and carers and repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU: (1)

| (i) | Is the omission by the Spanish legislature from Article 48(2) of the Consolidated Text of the Law on the Workers’ Statute (Texto Refundido de la Ley del Estatuto de los Trabajadores) and from Articles 177, 178 and 179 of the Consolidated Text of the General Law on Social Security (Texto Refundido de la Ley General de la Seguridad Social) of provisions requiring an assessment of the specific needs of single-parent families in the area of work-life balance, having implications for the period in which care is provided to a new-born child, as compared with a child born into a two-parent family in which both parents have an expectation of access to paid leave if both fulfil the conditions of access to the social security benefit, compatible with the Directive, which requires a specific assessment, inter alia, of the birth of a child into a single-parent family, in order to determine the conditions of access to and the detailed arrangements for parental leave? |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Is the omission by the Spanish legislature from Article 48(2) of the Consolidated Text of the Law on the Workers’ Statute (Texto Refundido de la Ley del Estatuto de los Trabajadores) and from Articles 177, 178 and 179 of the Consolidated Text of the General Law on Social Security (Texto Refundido de la Ley General de la Seguridad Social) of provisions requiring an assessment of the specific needs of single-parent families in the area of work-life balance, having implications for the period in which care is provided to a new-born child, as compared with a child born into a two-parent family in which both parents have an expectation of access to paid leave if both fulfil the conditions of access to the social security benefit, compatible with the Directive, which requires a specific assessment, inter alia, of the birth of a child into a single-parent family, in order to determine the conditions of access to and the detailed arrangements for parental leave?

| (ii) | In the absence of a specific statutory provision laid down by the Spanish legislature, must the eligibility conditions for time off work for the birth of a child, the conditions of access to the social security cash benefit and the rules governing eligibility for parental leave, and, in particular, the possible extension of the duration of that leave owing to the lack of another parent other than the biological mother who cares for the child, be interpreted flexibly pursuant to the Community provision? |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

In the absence of a specific statutory provision laid down by the Spanish legislature, must the eligibility conditions for time off work for the birth of a child, the conditions of access to the social security cash benefit and the rules governing eligibility for parental leave, and, in particular, the possible extension of the duration of that leave owing to the lack of another parent other than the biological mother who cares for the child, be interpreted flexibly pursuant to the Community provision?

---

(1)  OJ L 188, 12.7.2019, p. 79–93.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 7 November 2022 — Julieta, Rogelio v Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria

(Case C-687/22)

(2023/C 112/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Julieta, Rogelio

Respondent: Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria

Questions referred

| (i) | Is it possible to apply the principle that national law must be interpreted in conformity with EU law to Article 23(4) of [Directive (EU) 2019/1023 (1)] where the facts (as in the present case, in view of the date of the application for discharge of debt) occurred during the period between the entry into force of the directive and the deadline for its transposition, and the applicable national legislation (the consolidated text of the Ley Concursal (Insolvency Law), as amended by Royal Legislative Decree 1/2020) is not the legislation which transposes the directive (Law 16/22)? |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Is it possible to apply the principle that national law must be interpreted in conformity with EU law to Article 23(4) of [Directive (EU) 2019/1023 (1)] where the facts (as in the present case, in view of the date of the application for discharge of debt) occurred during the period between the entry into force of the directive and the deadline for its transposition, and the applicable national legislation (the consolidated text of the Ley Concursal (Insolvency Law), as amended by Royal Legislative Decree 1/2020) is not the legislation which transposes the directive (Law 16/22)?

| (ii) | Is national legislation, such as the Spanish legislation established in the consolidated text of the Insolvency Law (as amended by Royal Legislative Decree 1/2020), which provides no justification for excluding claims governed by public law from discharge of debt, compatible with Article 23(4) of the directive and its underlying principles concerning discharge of debt? In so far as that legislation excludes claims governed by public law from discharge of debt and is not duly justified, does it compromise or jeopardise the attainment of the objectives established in the directive? |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Is national legislation, such as the Spanish legislation established in the consolidated text of the Insolvency Law (as amended by Royal Legislative Decree 1/2020), which provides no justification for excluding claims governed by public law from discharge of debt, compatible with Article 23(4) of the directive and its underlying principles concerning discharge of debt? In so far as that legislation excludes claims governed by public law from discharge of debt and is not duly justified, does it compromise or jeopardise the attainment of the objectives established in the directive?

| (iii) | Does Article 23(4) of the directive contain an exhaustive, closed list of categories of claims which can be excluded from discharge, or is the list instead merely illustrative, with the national legislature enjoying absolute discretion to establish such categories of excludable claims as it sees fit, provided that they are duly justified under national law? |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Does Article 23(4) of the directive contain an exhaustive, closed list of categories of claims which can be excluded from discharge, or is the list instead merely illustrative, with the national legislature enjoying absolute discretion to establish such categories of excludable claims as it sees fit, provided that they are duly justified under national law?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (Directive on restructuring and insolvency) (OJ 2019 L 172, p. 18).

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/16

---

Appeal brought on 16 November 2022 by the European Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-651/20, KL v EIB

(Case C-704/22 P)

(2023/C 112/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and I. Zanin, acting as Agents, and A. Duron, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: KL

By order of 30 January 2023, the President of the Court removed Case C-704/22 P from the Court register and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/16

---

Appeal brought on 16 November 2022 by the European Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-751/20, KL v EIB

(Case C-705/22 P)

(2023/C 112/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and I. Zanin, acting as Agents, and A. Duron, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: KL

By order of 30 January 2023, the President of the Court removed Case C-705/22 P from the Court register and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 16 November 2022 — Asociación Española de Productores de Vacuno de Carne — ASOPROVAC v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-708/22)

(2023/C 112/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación Española de Productores de Vacuno de Carne — ASOPROVAC

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

| (1) | Are Articles 4 and 32(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 and Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 to be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Real Decreto 41/2021 (Royal Decree 41/2021) which, in order to prevent the creation of artificial conditions in relation to the grant of a concession of permanent public common pastureland to beneficiaries who do not use that pastureland, provides that grazing activity is to be permitted only if it is carried out with animals belonging to the holding? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Are Articles 4 and 32(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 and Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 to be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Real Decreto 41/2021 (Royal Decree 41/2021) which, in order to prevent the creation of artificial conditions in relation to the grant of a concession of permanent public common pastureland to beneficiaries who do not use that pastureland, provides that grazing activity is to be permitted only if it is carried out with animals belonging to the holding?

| (2) | Is Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, relating to the creation of artificial conditions for obtaining support, to be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Royal Decree 41/2021, which establishes a presumption that the conditions for access to support were artificially created in cases where the agricultural activity of grazing on permanent public common pastureland is carried out with animals which do not belong to the aid applicant’s own holding? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Is Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, relating to the creation of artificial conditions for obtaining support, to be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Royal Decree 41/2021, which establishes a presumption that the conditions for access to support were artificially created in cases where the agricultural activity of grazing on permanent public common pastureland is carried out with animals which do not belong to the aid applicant’s own holding?

| (3) | Is Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 to be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Real Decreto 1075/2014 (Royal Decree 1075/2014) of 19 December, pursuant to which the grazing of agricultural areas may not be classified as the maintenance of those areas in a state suitable for grazing? |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Is Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 to be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Real Decreto 1075/2014 (Royal Decree 1075/2014) of 19 December, pursuant to which the grazing of agricultural areas may not be classified as the maintenance of those areas in a state suitable for grazing?

| (4) | Is Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 to be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Royal Decree 1075/2014 of 19 December, pursuant to which persons who merely hold a non-exclusive grazing right over farmland that is not owned by them, and who assign that right to a third party so that the latter may use the pastureland to graze livestock, do not carry out an agricultural activity as provided for in Article 4(1)(c)(i)? |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Is Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 to be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Royal Decree 1075/2014 of 19 December, pursuant to which persons who merely hold a non-exclusive grazing right over farmland that is not owned by them, and who assign that right to a third party so that the latter may use the pastureland to graze livestock, do not carry out an agricultural activity as provided for in Article 4(1)(c)(i)?

| (5) | Is Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 to be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Royal Decree 1075/2014 of 19 December, pursuant to which persons who merely hold a non-exclusive grazing right over common farmland which is not owned by them cannot be treated as managers of the pastureland to which that grazing right applies for the purposes of carrying out the maintenance of those agricultural areas in a state suitable for grazing? |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Is Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 to be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Royal Decree 1075/2014 of 19 December, pursuant to which persons who merely hold a non-exclusive grazing right over common farmland which is not owned by them cannot be treated as managers of the pastureland to which that grazing right applies for the purposes of carrying out the maintenance of those agricultural areas in a state suitable for grazing?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 — OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/17

---

Appeal brought on 24 November 2022 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 September 2022 in joined Cases T-371/20 and T-554/20 Pollinis France v Commission

(Case C-726/22 P)

(2023/C 112/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, C. Ehrbar, G. Gattinara, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Pollinis France

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | order the applicant to bear the costs arising from cases T-371/20 and T-554/20 and from the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant to bear the costs arising from cases T-371/20 and T-554/20 and from the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the European Commission raises two pleas in law.

| 1. | The General Court misinterpreted the concept of ‘matter where the decision has not been taken by the institution’ under the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No1049/2001.
  The General Court misapplied the concept of ‘matters where the decision has not be taken by the institution’ by confining the application of the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 to matters submitted for deliberation within the institution or imminently submitted for deliberation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court misinterpreted the concept of ‘matter where the decision has not been taken by the institution’ under the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No1049/2001.

The General Court misapplied the concept of ‘matters where the decision has not be taken by the institution’ by confining the application of the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 to matters submitted for deliberation within the institution or imminently submitted for deliberation.

| 2. | The General Court erred in law when assessing ‘if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process’ within the meaning of Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001. The second plea is divided in two parts.
  Firstly, the General Court substituted its own interpretation of the contested decisions and adopted a contradictory reasoning.
  Secondly, the General Court erroneously rejected the relevance of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers and the Standards Rules of procedure for committees with the view to assessing ‘if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process’. Moreover, it did not use the correct legal standards to assess relevant factors and it omitted to assess the relevant factors as part of a body of consistent evidence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court erred in law when assessing ‘if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process’ within the meaning of Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001. The second plea is divided in two parts.

Firstly, the General Court substituted its own interpretation of the contested decisions and adopted a contradictory reasoning.

Secondly, the General Court erroneously rejected the relevance of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers and the Standards Rules of procedure for committees with the view to assessing ‘if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process’. Moreover, it did not use the correct legal standards to assess relevant factors and it omitted to assess the relevant factors as part of a body of consistent evidence.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of First Instance of Liège (Belgium) lodged on 2 December 2022 — Casino de Spa SA and Others

(Case C-741/22)

(2023/C 112/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Court of First Instance of Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Casino de Spa SA and Others

Defendant: Belgian State (SPF Finances)

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 135(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of neutrality be interpreted as precluding a Member State from using different treatment for online lotteries offered by Loterie Nationale [(the Belgian national lottery)], a public establishment, which are exempt from value added tax, and other online games of chance offered by private operators, which are subject to value added tax, assuming that they are similar supplies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 135(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of neutrality be interpreted as precluding a Member State from using different treatment for online lotteries offered by Loterie Nationale [(the Belgian national lottery)], a public establishment, which are exempt from value added tax, and other online games of chance offered by private operators, which are subject to value added tax, assuming that they are similar supplies?

| 2. | In answering the previous question, in order to determine whether there are two similar categories which are in competition with each other and which require the same treatment for the purposes of value added tax, or whether there are separate categories which allow for different treatment, must the national court consider only whether or not the two forms of games are in competition with each other from the point of view of the average consumer, in the sense that services are similar where they have similar characteristics and meet the same needs from the point of view of consumers, the test being whether their use is comparable, and where the differences between them do not have a significant influence on the decision of the average consumer to use one or the other of those services (alternative criterion), or must it take into account other criteria such as the existence of a discretionary power on the part of the Member State to exempt certain categories of games from VAT and to subject others to it, the fact that lotteries belong to a distinct category of games, referred to in Article 135(1)(i) of the VAT Directive, the different legal frameworks which apply to Loterie Nationale and to other games of chance, the different supervisory authorities or the societal and gambler protection objectives pursued by the legislation applicable to Loterie Nationale? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In answering the previous question, in order to determine whether there are two similar categories which are in competition with each other and which require the same treatment for the purposes of value added tax, or whether there are separate categories which allow for different treatment, must the national court consider only whether or not the two forms of games are in competition with each other from the point of view of the average consumer, in the sense that services are similar where they have similar characteristics and meet the same needs from the point of view of consumers, the test being whether their use is comparable, and where the differences between them do not have a significant influence on the decision of the average consumer to use one or the other of those services (alternative criterion), or must it take into account other criteria such as the existence of a discretionary power on the part of the Member State to exempt certain categories of games from VAT and to subject others to it, the fact that lotteries belong to a distinct category of games, referred to in Article 135(1)(i) of the VAT Directive, the different legal frameworks which apply to Loterie Nationale and to other games of chance, the different supervisory authorities or the societal and gambler protection objectives pursued by the legislation applicable to Loterie Nationale?

| 3. | Must the principle of sincere cooperation set out in Article 4(3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 267 TFEU, the provisions of the VAT Directive and, where applicable, the principle of effectiveness, be interpreted as meaning that they allow the constitutional court of a Member State to maintain — on its own initiative and without a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU — on the basis of a provision of national law — in this case Article 8 of the loi spéciale du 6 janvier 1989 sur la Cour constitutionnelle (Special Law of 6 January 1989 on the Constitutional Court) — the retrospective effect of national provisions on value added tax which were found to be contrary to the national Constitution and were annulled on that ground and whose non-conformity with EU law was also relied on in support of the action for annulment before the national court, without, however, that complaint having been examined by the latter, on the general ground of ‘budgetary and administrative difficulties which repayment of taxes already paid would cause’, thus completely depriving taxable persons subject to VAT of the right to reimbursement of the VAT collected in breach of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the principle of sincere cooperation set out in Article 4(3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 267 TFEU, the provisions of the VAT Directive and, where applicable, the principle of effectiveness, be interpreted as meaning that they allow the constitutional court of a Member State to maintain — on its own initiative and without a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU — on the basis of a provision of national law — in this case Article 8 of the loi spéciale du 6 janvier 1989 sur la Cour constitutionnelle (Special Law of 6 January 1989 on the Constitutional Court) — the retrospective effect of national provisions on value added tax which were found to be contrary to the national Constitution and were annulled on that ground and whose non-conformity with EU law was also relied on in support of the action for annulment before the national court, without, however, that complaint having been examined by the latter, on the general ground of ‘budgetary and administrative difficulties which repayment of taxes already paid would cause’, thus completely depriving taxable persons subject to VAT of the right to reimbursement of the VAT collected in breach of EU law?

| 4. | If the answer to the preceding question is in the negative, do the same provisions and principles, interpreted, in particular, in the light of the judgment of 10 April 2008, Marks & Spencer, C-309/06, under which the general principles of Community law, including that of fiscal neutrality, give a trader who has made supplies a right to recover the sums mistakenly claimed in respect of them (judgment of 10 April 2008, Marks & Spencer, C-309/06), require the Member State concerned to refund to the taxable persons the VAT collected in breach of EU law where, as in the present case, it subsequently follows from a judgment of the Court of Justice, in response to questions referred for a preliminary ruling, that the annulled national provisions are not in conformity with Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and that the decision of the Constitutional Court to maintain the retrospective effect of the provisions annulled by it is not in conformity with EU law? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the preceding question is in the negative, do the same provisions and principles, interpreted, in particular, in the light of the judgment of 10 April 2008, Marks & Spencer, C-309/06, under which the general principles of Community law, including that of fiscal neutrality, give a trader who has made supplies a right to recover the sums mistakenly claimed in respect of them (judgment of 10 April 2008, Marks & Spencer, C-309/06), require the Member State concerned to refund to the taxable persons the VAT collected in breach of EU law where, as in the present case, it subsequently follows from a judgment of the Court of Justice, in response to questions referred for a preliminary ruling, that the annulled national provisions are not in conformity with Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and that the decision of the Constitutional Court to maintain the retrospective effect of the provisions annulled by it is not in conformity with EU law?

| 5. | Does the different treatment introduced by Articles 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the loi-programme du 1er juillet 2016 (Programme Law of 1 July 2016), which were annulled by Constitutional Court judgment No 34/2018 of 22 March 2018, but the effects of which were maintained after that date in respect of the taxes already paid for the period from 1 July 2016 to 21 May 201[8], between lotteries, whether terrestrial or online, and other online games and forms of betting create a selective advantage in favour of the operators of those lotteries and thus aid granted by the Belgian State or through Belgian State resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings, which is incompatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the different treatment introduced by Articles 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the loi-programme du 1er juillet 2016 (Programme Law of 1 July 2016), which were annulled by Constitutional Court judgment No 34/2018 of 22 March 2018, but the effects of which were maintained after that date in respect of the taxes already paid for the period from 1 July 2016 to 21 May 201[8], between lotteries, whether terrestrial or online, and other online games and forms of betting create a selective advantage in favour of the operators of those lotteries and thus aid granted by the Belgian State or through Belgian State resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings, which is incompatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU?

| 6. | If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, does the obligation on the Member States to safeguard the rights of individuals affected by the unlawful implementation of the aid in question, in accordance with, inter alia, the judgment of 5 October 2006, Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich, C-368/04, the principle of sincere cooperation and the general principles of Community law, including that of fiscal neutrality, which give a trader who has made supplies a right to recover the sums mistakenly charged in respect of them (judgment of 10 April 2008, Marks & Spencer, C-309/06), allow taxable persons who have been charged VAT on the basis of unlawful State aid to recover the equivalent of the tax paid in the form of damages for the loss suffered? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, does the obligation on the Member States to safeguard the rights of individuals affected by the unlawful implementation of the aid in question, in accordance with, inter alia, the judgment of 5 October 2006, Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich, C-368/04, the principle of sincere cooperation and the general principles of Community law, including that of fiscal neutrality, which give a trader who has made supplies a right to recover the sums mistakenly charged in respect of them (judgment of 10 April 2008, Marks & Spencer, C-309/06), allow taxable persons who have been charged VAT on the basis of unlawful State aid to recover the equivalent of the tax paid in the form of damages for the loss suffered?

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Bergamo (Italy) lodged on 7 December 2022 — KH v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

(Case C-747/22)

(2023/C 112/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Bergamo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KH

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Question referred

Are Articles 29 and 26 [of] Directive 2011/95 (1) to be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as that contained in Article 2(1)(a) [of] Decree-Law No 4/2019, which provides for a requirement of 10 years’ residency in Italy, in addition to the condition of 2 years of continuous residency prior to application, in order to access an anti-poverty benefit supporting access to employment and social integration, such as the ‘basic income’?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2022 — Bayerische Ärzteversorgung, Bayerische Architektenversorgung, Bayerische Apothekerversorgung, Bayerische Rechtsanwalts- und Steuerberaterversorgung, Bayerische Ingenieurversorgung-Bau mit Psychotherapeutenversorgung v Deutsche Bundesbank

(Case C-758/22, Bayerische Ärzteversorgung and Others)

(2023/C 112/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bayerische Ärzteversorgung, Bayerische Architektenversorgung, Bayerische Apothekerversorgung, Bayerische Rechtsanwalts- und Steuerberaterversorgung, Bayerische Ingenieurversorgung-Bau mit Psychotherapeutenversorgung

Defendant: Deutsche Bundesbank

Questions referred

Questions concerning the interpretation of Regulations (EU) 2018/231 and (EU) No 549/2013: (1)

| 1. | (a) | Does point (b) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA require that all consumers of the products offered by the producer must have the freedom to purchase or not purchase those products and to make that choice on the basis of the prices charged?
  If the foregoing question is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Does point (b) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA require that all consumers of the products offered by the producer must have the freedom to purchase or not purchase those products and to make that choice on the basis of the prices charged?

If the foregoing question is answered in the negative:

| (b) | In cases where the vast majority of those consumers, without having such freedom of choice, receive from the producer products amounting to more than half of its output by virtue of compulsory membership with that producer and are required to pay compulsory contributions in an amount set by the producer, are the requirements of the provision satisfied by the fact that a minority had the option of joining the producer as voluntary members and exercised that option in order to obtain the products in exchange for payment of the same contributions as the compulsory members? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

In cases where the vast majority of those consumers, without having such freedom of choice, receive from the producer products amounting to more than half of its output by virtue of compulsory membership with that producer and are required to pay compulsory contributions in an amount set by the producer, are the requirements of the provision satisfied by the fact that a minority had the option of joining the producer as voluntary members and exercised that option in order to obtain the products in exchange for payment of the same contributions as the compulsory members?

| 2. | Will market output at economically significant prices, as defined under paragraphs 3.17 to 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA, always be present if the ‘50 % criterion’ defined in the third and fourth sentences of the third subparagraph of paragraph 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA is fulfilled by virtue of the fact that at least 50 % of the costs are covered by sales over a sustained multi-year period, or is that criterion to be interpreted not as a sufficient condition (one that is sufficient by itself) but rather as a necessary condition that applies in addition to the two preconditions laid down in points (a) and (b) of the second sentence of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will market output at economically significant prices, as defined under paragraphs 3.17 to 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA, always be present if the ‘50 % criterion’ defined in the third and fourth sentences of the third subparagraph of paragraph 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA is fulfilled by virtue of the fact that at least 50 % of the costs are covered by sales over a sustained multi-year period, or is that criterion to be interpreted not as a sufficient condition (one that is sufficient by itself) but rather as a necessary condition that applies in addition to the two preconditions laid down in points (a) and (b) of the second sentence of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA?

| 3. | For the purposes of determining whether institutional units are market producers as defined in paragraph 3.24 of Annex A to the ESA, must reference be made not only to paragraphs 3.17, 3.19 and 3.26 of Annex A but also to the additional requirements laid down in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1.37 of Annex A to the ESA? |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the purposes of determining whether institutional units are market producers as defined in paragraph 3.24 of Annex A to the ESA, must reference be made not only to paragraphs 3.17, 3.19 and 3.26 of Annex A but also to the additional requirements laid down in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1.37 of Annex A to the ESA?

| 4. | (a) | In order for an institutional unit to be classified in subsector S.129, does paragraph 2.107 of Annex A to the ESA necessarily require that all of its benefits must be provided to all participants on the basis of an insurance contract?
  If that is the case: |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

(a)

In order for an institutional unit to be classified in subsector S.129, does paragraph 2.107 of Annex A to the ESA necessarily require that all of its benefits must be provided to all participants on the basis of an insurance contract?

If that is the case:

| (b) | Is the requirement for the benefits to be provided on a contractual basis already fulfilled in this respect if, notwithstanding the fact that the compulsory membership, the compulsory contributions and the compulsory benefits of the institutional unit are governed by the public body pursuant to its statutes, compulsory members can also establish claims to additional benefits through the payment of voluntary additional contributions? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is the requirement for the benefits to be provided on a contractual basis already fulfilled in this respect if, notwithstanding the fact that the compulsory membership, the compulsory contributions and the compulsory benefits of the institutional unit are governed by the public body pursuant to its statutes, compulsory members can also establish claims to additional benefits through the payment of voluntary additional contributions?

| 5. | Is point (f) of the third sentence of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2018/231 to be interpreted as excluding from the concept of a ‘pension fund’, as defined in the first sentence of that provision, only those institutional units that satisfy both of the criteria set out in paragraph 2.117 of Annex A to the ESA, or does that exception also cover other institutional units which are to be regarded as social security pension schemes under paragraph 17.43 of Annex A to the ESA, even if they do not meet all of the requirements set out in paragraph 2.117 of Annex A to the ESA? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is point (f) of the third sentence of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2018/231 to be interpreted as excluding from the concept of a ‘pension fund’, as defined in the first sentence of that provision, only those institutional units that satisfy both of the criteria set out in paragraph 2.117 of Annex A to the ESA, or does that exception also cover other institutional units which are to be regarded as social security pension schemes under paragraph 17.43 of Annex A to the ESA, even if they do not meet all of the requirements set out in paragraph 2.117 of Annex A to the ESA?

| 6. | (a) | Does the concept of ‘general government’ in paragraph 2.117(b) and paragraph 17.43 of Annex A to the ESA refer only to the respective primary unit, or does it also include legally independent pension institutions that have been established on a statutory basis, are organised on the basis of compulsory membership and financed by contributions, and which have the right to self-governance and separate accounting?
  In the latter case: |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

(a)

Does the concept of ‘general government’ in paragraph 2.117(b) and paragraph 17.43 of Annex A to the ESA refer only to the respective primary unit, or does it also include legally independent pension institutions that have been established on a statutory basis, are organised on the basis of compulsory membership and financed by contributions, and which have the right to self-governance and separate accounting?

In the latter case:

| (b) | Does the settlement or approval of the contributions and benefits, as referred to in paragraph 2.117(b) of Annex A to the ESA, mean a settlement or approval of the amount, or does it suffice if a law prescribes the minimum risks to be covered and the minimum level of cover, and also regulates the principles and limits for collection of contributions, while leaving it for the pension institution to assess the amount of the contributions and benefits within this framework? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does the settlement or approval of the contributions and benefits, as referred to in paragraph 2.117(b) of Annex A to the ESA, mean a settlement or approval of the amount, or does it suffice if a law prescribes the minimum risks to be covered and the minimum level of cover, and also regulates the principles and limits for collection of contributions, while leaving it for the pension institution to assess the amount of the contributions and benefits within this framework?

| (c) | Does the concept of a ‘government unit’, as referred to in paragraph 20.39 of Annex A to the ESA, include only institutional units that fulfil all the requirements set out in paragraphs 20.10 and 20.12 of Annex A to the ESA? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Does the concept of a ‘government unit’, as referred to in paragraph 20.39 of Annex A to the ESA, include only institutional units that fulfil all the requirements set out in paragraphs 20.10 and 20.12 of Annex A to the ESA?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/231 of the European Central Bank of 26 January 2018 on statistical reporting requirements for pension funds (ECB/2018/2) (OJ 2018 L 45, p. 3) read in conjunction with Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union (OJ 2013 L 174, p. 1; ‘ESA’).

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2022 — Sächsische Ärzteversorgung v Deutsche Bundesbank

(Case C-759/22, Sächsische Ärzteversorgung)

(2023/C 112/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sächsische Ärzteversorgung

Defendant: Deutsche Bundesbank

Questions referred

Questions concerning the interpretation of Regulations (EU) 2018/231 and (EU) No 549/2013: (1)

| 1. | (a) | Does point (b) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA require that all consumers of the products offered by the producer must have the freedom to purchase or not purchase those products and to make that choice on the basis of the prices charged?
  If the foregoing question is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Does point (b) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA require that all consumers of the products offered by the producer must have the freedom to purchase or not purchase those products and to make that choice on the basis of the prices charged?

If the foregoing question is answered in the negative:

| (b) | In cases where the vast majority of those consumers, without having such freedom of choice, receive from the producer products amounting to more than half of its output by virtue of compulsory membership with that producer and are required to pay compulsory contributions in an amount set by the producer, are the requirements of the provision satisfied by the fact that a minority had the option of joining the producer as voluntary members and exercised that option in order to obtain the products in exchange for payment of the same contributions as the compulsory members? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

In cases where the vast majority of those consumers, without having such freedom of choice, receive from the producer products amounting to more than half of its output by virtue of compulsory membership with that producer and are required to pay compulsory contributions in an amount set by the producer, are the requirements of the provision satisfied by the fact that a minority had the option of joining the producer as voluntary members and exercised that option in order to obtain the products in exchange for payment of the same contributions as the compulsory members?

| 2. | Will market output at economically significant prices, as defined under paragraphs 3.17 to 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA, always be present if the ‘50 % criterion’ defined in the third and fourth sentences of the third subparagraph of paragraph 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA is fulfilled by virtue of the fact that at least 50 % of the costs are covered by sales over a sustained multi-year period, or is that criterion to be interpreted not as a sufficient condition (one that is sufficient by itself) but rather as a necessary condition that applies in addition to the two preconditions laid down in points (a) and (b) of the second sentence of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will market output at economically significant prices, as defined under paragraphs 3.17 to 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA, always be present if the ‘50 % criterion’ defined in the third and fourth sentences of the third subparagraph of paragraph 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA is fulfilled by virtue of the fact that at least 50 % of the costs are covered by sales over a sustained multi-year period, or is that criterion to be interpreted not as a sufficient condition (one that is sufficient by itself) but rather as a necessary condition that applies in addition to the two preconditions laid down in points (a) and (b) of the second sentence of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3.19 of Annex A to the ESA?

| 3. | For the purposes of determining whether institutional units are market producers as defined in paragraph 3.24 of Annex A to the ESA, must reference be made not only to paragraphs 3.17, 3.19 and 3.26 of Annex A but also to the additional requirements laid down in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1.37 of Annex A to the ESA? |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the purposes of determining whether institutional units are market producers as defined in paragraph 3.24 of Annex A to the ESA, must reference be made not only to paragraphs 3.17, 3.19 and 3.26 of Annex A but also to the additional requirements laid down in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1.37 of Annex A to the ESA?

| 4. | (a) | In order for an institutional unit to be classified in subsector S.129, does paragraph 2.107 of Annex A to the ESA necessarily require that all of its benefits must be provided to all participants on the basis of an insurance contract?
  If that is the case: |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

(a)

In order for an institutional unit to be classified in subsector S.129, does paragraph 2.107 of Annex A to the ESA necessarily require that all of its benefits must be provided to all participants on the basis of an insurance contract?

If that is the case:

| (b) | Is the requirement for the benefits to be provided on a contractual basis already fulfilled in this respect if, notwithstanding the fact that the compulsory membership, the compulsory contributions and the compulsory benefits of the institutional unit are governed by the public body pursuant to its statutes, compulsory members can also establish claims to additional benefits through the payment of voluntary additional contributions? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is the requirement for the benefits to be provided on a contractual basis already fulfilled in this respect if, notwithstanding the fact that the compulsory membership, the compulsory contributions and the compulsory benefits of the institutional unit are governed by the public body pursuant to its statutes, compulsory members can also establish claims to additional benefits through the payment of voluntary additional contributions?

| 5. | Is point (f) of the third sentence of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2018/231 to be interpreted as excluding from the concept of a ‘pension fund’, as defined in the first sentence of that provision, only those institutional units that satisfy both of the criteria set out in paragraph 2.117 of Annex A to the ESA, or does that exception also cover other institutional units which are to be regarded as social security pension schemes under paragraph 17.43 of Annex A to the ESA, even if they do not meet all of the requirements set out in paragraph 2.117 of Annex A to the ESA? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is point (f) of the third sentence of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2018/231 to be interpreted as excluding from the concept of a ‘pension fund’, as defined in the first sentence of that provision, only those institutional units that satisfy both of the criteria set out in paragraph 2.117 of Annex A to the ESA, or does that exception also cover other institutional units which are to be regarded as social security pension schemes under paragraph 17.43 of Annex A to the ESA, even if they do not meet all of the requirements set out in paragraph 2.117 of Annex A to the ESA?

| 6. | (a) | Does the concept of ‘general government’ in paragraph 2.117(b) and paragraph 17.43 of Annex A to the ESA refer only to the respective primary unit, or does it also include legally independent pension institutions that have been established on a statutory basis, are organised on the basis of compulsory membership and financed by contributions, and which have the right to self-governance and separate accounting?
  In the latter case: |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

(a)

Does the concept of ‘general government’ in paragraph 2.117(b) and paragraph 17.43 of Annex A to the ESA refer only to the respective primary unit, or does it also include legally independent pension institutions that have been established on a statutory basis, are organised on the basis of compulsory membership and financed by contributions, and which have the right to self-governance and separate accounting?

In the latter case:

| (b) | Does the settlement or approval of the contributions and benefits, as referred to in paragraph 2.117(b) of Annex A to the ESA, mean a settlement or approval of the amount, or does it suffice if a law prescribes the minimum risks to be covered and the minimum level of cover, and also regulates the principles and limits for collection of contributions, while leaving it for the pension institution to assess the amount of the contributions and benefits within this framework? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does the settlement or approval of the contributions and benefits, as referred to in paragraph 2.117(b) of Annex A to the ESA, mean a settlement or approval of the amount, or does it suffice if a law prescribes the minimum risks to be covered and the minimum level of cover, and also regulates the principles and limits for collection of contributions, while leaving it for the pension institution to assess the amount of the contributions and benefits within this framework?

| (c) | Does the concept of a ‘government unit’, as referred to in paragraph 20.39 of Annex A to the ESA, include only institutional units that fulfil all the requirements set out in paragraphs 20.10 and 20.12 of Annex A to the ESA? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Does the concept of a ‘government unit’, as referred to in paragraph 20.39 of Annex A to the ESA, include only institutional units that fulfil all the requirements set out in paragraphs 20.10 and 20.12 of Annex A to the ESA?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/231 of the European Central Bank of 26 January 2018 on statistical reporting requirements for pension funds (ECB/2018/2) (OJ 2018 L 45, p. 3) read in conjunction with Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union (OJ 2013 L 174, p. 1; ‘ESA’).

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal judiciaire de Marseille (France) lodged on 16 December 2022 — Procureur de la République v OP

(Case C-763/22)

(2023/C 112/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal judiciaire de Marseille

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Procureur de la République

Defendant: OP

Question referred

Does Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (1) preclude the legislation of a Member State from granting a governmental authority the power to decide, between a European arrest warrant and a concurrent extradition request issued by a third country, which of the two is to be executed, without any possibility of legal remedy?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2022 — WD v Allane SE

(Case C-766/22)

(2023/C 112/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WD

Defendant: Allane SE

Questions referred

| 1. | Do mileage-dependent leasing contracts entered into with a consumer in respect of a motor vehicle for a term of 24 months constitute ‘car rental services’, meaning that they fall within the scope of the exception from the right of withdrawal under distance marketing law as set out in Article 16(l) of Directive 2011/83/EU? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do mileage-dependent leasing contracts entered into with a consumer in respect of a motor vehicle for a term of 24 months constitute ‘car rental services’, meaning that they fall within the scope of the exception from the right of withdrawal under distance marketing law as set out in Article 16(l) of Directive 2011/83/EU? (1)

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
  Do mileage-dependent leasing contracts entered into with a consumer in respect of a motor vehicle constitute contracts for financial services within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/65/EC, (2) which was reproduced by Article 2(12) of Directive 2011/83? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

Do mileage-dependent leasing contracts entered into with a consumer in respect of a motor vehicle constitute contracts for financial services within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/65/EC, (2) which was reproduced by Article 2(12) of Directive 2011/83?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

(2)  Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 19 December 2022 — Bundesarbeitskammer v HDI Global SE

(Case C-771/22, HDI Global)

(2023/C 112/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesarbeitskammer

Defendant: HDI Global SE

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 17 of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and related travel services, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (‘Directive 2015/2302’) to be interpreted as meaning that payments made by a traveller to the travel organiser before the start of the trip or holiday are only covered where the trip or holiday does not take place as a result of the insolvency of that travel organiser, or are also payments made to the travel organiser before the opening of insolvency proceedings covered if the traveller terminates the contract before the occurrence of insolvency due to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 12 of Directive 2015/2302? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 17 of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and related travel services, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (‘Directive 2015/2302’) to be interpreted as meaning that payments made by a traveller to the travel organiser before the start of the trip or holiday are only covered where the trip or holiday does not take place as a result of the insolvency of that travel organiser, or are also payments made to the travel organiser before the opening of insolvency proceedings covered if the traveller terminates the contract before the occurrence of insolvency due to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 12 of Directive 2015/2302?

| 2. | Is Article 17 of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and related travel services, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (‘Directive 2015/2302’) to be interpreted as meaning that payments made by a traveller to the travel organiser before the start of the trip or holiday are covered where, even before the occurrence of insolvency, the traveller terminates the contract due to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 12 of that directive, but the insolvency occurred during the trip or holiday that had been booked? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 17 of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and related travel services, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (‘Directive 2015/2302’) to be interpreted as meaning that payments made by a traveller to the travel organiser before the start of the trip or holiday are covered where, even before the occurrence of insolvency, the traveller terminates the contract due to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 12 of that directive, but the insolvency occurred during the trip or holiday that had been booked?

| 3. | Is Article 17 of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and related travel services, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (‘Directive 2015/2302’) to be interpreted as meaning that payments made by a traveller to the travel organiser before the start of the trip or holiday are covered where, even before the occurrence of insolvency, the traveller terminates the contract due to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 12 of that directive, and the insolvency of the travel organiser occurred due to those exceptional circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 17 of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and related travel services, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (‘Directive 2015/2302’) to be interpreted as meaning that payments made by a traveller to the travel organiser before the start of the trip or holiday are covered where, even before the occurrence of insolvency, the traveller terminates the contract due to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 12 of that directive, and the insolvency of the travel organiser occurred due to those exceptional circumstances?

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2022 — JX v FTI Touristik GmbH

(Case C-774/22, FTI Touristik)

(2023/C 112/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JX

Defendant: FTI Touristik GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) 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 (Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation) to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to providing for international jurisdiction, the rule also concerns a provision on the territorial jurisdiction of national courts in matters relating to a travel contract where both the consumer, as a traveller, and the other party to the contract, the tour operator[,] have their seat in the same Member State, but the travel destination is situated not in that Member State but abroad (so-called ‘false internal cases’) with the consequence that the consumer can make contractual claims against the tour operator supplementing national provisions on jurisdiction at the court of his or her place of residence?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 December 2022 — flightright GmbH v TAP Portugal

(Case C-778/22, flightright)

(2023/C 112/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: TAP Portugal

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier must offer a passenger who has missed a connecting flight due to extraordinary circumstances the earliest possible re-routing option — a transfer connection without check-through — which allows the passengers to reach their destination 5 hours and 15 minutes earlier compared to a later direct flight the next day, although still 18 hours and 15 minutes late, and which requires the passenger to take three flights instead of one direct flight and to collect their baggage at both transfer airports, leave the secured area, and check in themselves and their baggage for each of the new flights two hours before the planned departure time, before proceeding once more through security, in which two of the flights concerned are operated by domestic Brazilian air carriers, one of which is a ‘low-cost’ airline?

---

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

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/26

---

Appeal brought on 27 December 2022 by Eulex Kosovo against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 October 2022 in Case T-242/17 RENV, SC v Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-785/22 P)

(2023/C 112/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Eulex Kosovo (represented by: L.-G. Wigemark, Agent, and E. Raoult, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: SC

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | allow the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

| — | dismiss the claim in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the claim in its entirety;

| — | order SC to pay the costs of the proceedings in cases T-242/17, C-730/18, T-242/17 RENV and those related to the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order SC to pay the costs of the proceedings in cases T-242/17, C-730/18, T-242/17 RENV and those related to the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on several sets of observations on the judgment under appeal:

| — | observations on the General Court's submissions on the admissibility of SC’s claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

observations on the General Court's submissions on the admissibility of SC’s claim;

| — | observations on the General Court's findings in the judgment by default concerning the jurisdiction of the General Court and on the admissibility of SC’s application; |
| --- | --- |

—

observations on the General Court's findings in the judgment by default concerning the jurisdiction of the General Court and on the admissibility of SC’s application;

| — | objections to the General Court's assessment of the merits of the claim; and |
| --- | --- |

—

objections to the General Court's assessment of the merits of the claim; and

| — | observations on the General Court’s findings regarding SC’s claims for compensation. |
| --- | --- |

—

observations on the General Court’s findings regarding SC’s claims for compensation.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 25 January 2023 — Father v Mother

(Case C-35/23, Greislzel (1))

(2023/C 112/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: Father

Defendant and respondent: Mother

Parties to the proceedings: Child L, Lawyer (Guardian ad litem)

Questions referred

To what extent is the regulatory mechanism provided for in Article 10 and Article 11 of the Brussels IIa Regulation (2) limited to proceedings conducted in the context of relations between EU Member States?

More specifically:

| 1. | Does Article 10 of the Brussels IIa Regulation apply, with the effect that the jurisdiction of the courts in the former State of residence is retained, if the child had his or her habitual residence in an EU Member State (Germany) before his or her removal and the return proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘the HCAC’) were conducted between an EU Member State (Poland) and a third State (Switzerland) and, in those proceedings, the return of the child was refused?
  If question 1 is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 10 of the Brussels IIa Regulation apply, with the effect that the jurisdiction of the courts in the former State of residence is retained, if the child had his or her habitual residence in an EU Member State (Germany) before his or her removal and the return proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘the HCAC’) were conducted between an EU Member State (Poland) and a third State (Switzerland) and, in those proceedings, the return of the child was refused?

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

| 2. | In the context of Article 10(b)(i) of the Brussels IIa Regulation, what requirements are to be imposed for the purposes of establishing continuing jurisdiction? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the context of Article 10(b)(i) of the Brussels IIa Regulation, what requirements are to be imposed for the purposes of establishing continuing jurisdiction?

| 3. | Does Article 11 (6) to (8) of the Brussels IIa Regulation also apply in the case of return proceedings implemented under the HCAC in the context of relations between a third State and an EU Member State, as a State of refuge, in so far as the child had his or her habitual residence in another EU Member State before the removal? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 11 (6) to (8) of the Brussels IIa Regulation also apply in the case of return proceedings implemented under the HCAC in the context of relations between a third State and an EU Member State, as a State of refuge, in so far as the child had his or her habitual residence in another EU Member State before the removal?

---

(1)  The present case is referred to by a fictitious name which does not correspond to the real name of any party to the case.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/27

---

Appeal brought on 27 January 2023 by Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 November 2022 in joined Cases T-316/14 RENV and T-148/19, PPK v Council

(Case C-44/23 P)

(2023/C 112/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) (represented by: A.M. van Eik, T. Buruma, advocates)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2022 in Joined Cases T-316/14 RENV and T-148/19 in so far as it concerns the dismissal of the actions for annulment brought against Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513 (1) of 26 March 2015, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1325 (2) of 31 July 2015, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2425 (3) of 21 December 2015, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1127 (4) of 12 July 2016, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/150 (5) of 27 January 2017, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420 (6) of 4 August 2017, Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 (7) of 8 January 2019, and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1341 (8) of 8 August 2019 insofar as they concern the PKK (a.k.a. KADEK a.k.a. KONGRA-GEL); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2022 in Joined Cases T-316/14 RENV and T-148/19 in so far as it concerns the dismissal of the actions for annulment brought against Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513 (1) of 26 March 2015, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1325 (2) of 31 July 2015, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2425 (3) of 21 December 2015, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1127 (4) of 12 July 2016, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/150 (5) of 27 January 2017, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420 (6) of 4 August 2017, Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 (7) of 8 January 2019, and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1341 (8) of 8 August 2019 insofar as they concern the PKK (a.k.a. KADEK a.k.a. KONGRA-GEL);

| — | give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal and to annul these Implementing Regulations and Decisions insofar as they concern the PKK (a.k.a. KADEK a.k.a. KONGRA-GEL); |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal and to annul these Implementing Regulations and Decisions insofar as they concern the PKK (a.k.a. KADEK a.k.a. KONGRA-GEL);

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of litigation of the Appellant arising from the present appeal and from joint cases T-316/14 RENV and T-148/19 with interest. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of litigation of the Appellant arising from the present appeal and from joint cases T-316/14 RENV and T-148/19 with interest.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the General Court erred in the contested judgment on the following points:

| I. | The General Court erred in law regarding the first subparagraph of Article 1(3) of Common Position (9) 2001/931 (hereafter: CP 931) in regards in particular to the interpretation given to the ‘aims’ therein and its application to the case. The General Court wrongfully concluded that the plea alleging infringement of Article 1(3) CP 931 must be rejected. |
| --- | --- |

I.

The General Court erred in law regarding the first subparagraph of Article 1(3) of Common Position (9) 2001/931 (hereafter: CP 931) in regards in particular to the interpretation given to the ‘aims’ therein and its application to the case. The General Court wrongfully concluded that the plea alleging infringement of Article 1(3) CP 931 must be rejected.

| II. | The General Court wrongly held that the Council could rely on the order of the UK Home Secretary of 29 March 2001 (hereafter: the UK 2001 decision) as the 1(4) CP 931 decision, since it is not clear whether the events mentioned in the Statements of Reasons in connection to the UK 2001 decision underly the UK 2001 decision, those events are outdated and do not support the conclusion that the appellant was a terrorist group within the meaning of article. The General Court wrongfully concluded that the plea alleging infringement of article 1(3) and article 1(4) CP 931 in so far as the contested measures are based on the UK 2001 decision must be rejected. |
| --- | --- |

II.

The General Court wrongly held that the Council could rely on the order of the UK Home Secretary of 29 March 2001 (hereafter: the UK 2001 decision) as the 1(4) CP 931 decision, since it is not clear whether the events mentioned in the Statements of Reasons in connection to the UK 2001 decision underly the UK 2001 decision, those events are outdated and do not support the conclusion that the appellant was a terrorist group within the meaning of article. The General Court wrongfully concluded that the plea alleging infringement of article 1(3) and article 1(4) CP 931 in so far as the contested measures are based on the UK 2001 decision must be rejected.

| III. | The General Court wrongly held that the Council’s review fulfilled the obligations under Article 1(6) CP 931, that it was conducted in due and proper form and that the Appellant’s plea that Article 1(6) was infringed upon by Council should be rejected as regards the 2015 to 2017 measures and the 2019 decisions. |
| --- | --- |

III.

The General Court wrongly held that the Council’s review fulfilled the obligations under Article 1(6) CP 931, that it was conducted in due and proper form and that the Appellant’s plea that Article 1(6) was infringed upon by Council should be rejected as regards the 2015 to 2017 measures and the 2019 decisions.

| IV. | The General Court erred in law regarding the principle of proportionality and applied it wrongly to the case at hand. |
| --- | --- |

IV.

The General Court erred in law regarding the principle of proportionality and applied it wrongly to the case at hand.

| V. | The General Court wrongly considered the Council to have fulfilled the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

V.

The General Court wrongly considered the Council to have fulfilled the obligation to state reasons.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513 of 26 March 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 790/2014 (OJ 2015, L 82, p. 1).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1325 of 31 July 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513(OJ 2015, L 206, p. 12).

(3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2425 of 21 December 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1325(OJ 2015, L 334, p. 1).

(4)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1127 of 12 July 2016 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2425(OJ 2016, L 188, p. 1).

(5)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/150 of 27 January 2017 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1127 (OJ 2017, L 23, p. 3).

(6)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420 of 4 August 2017 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/150 (OJ 2017, L 204, p. 3).

(7)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019 amending and updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2018/1084 (OJ 2019, L 6, p. 6).

(8)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1341 of 8 August 2019 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 (OJ 2019, L 209, p. 15).

(9)  Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001, L 344, p. 93).

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 28 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — PM v Senatsverwaltung für Justiz, Vielfalt und Antidiskriminierung, interested party: CM

(Case C-304/22, (1) PM)

(2023/C 112/37)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 22.8.2022.

---

General Court

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — Aquind and Others v Commission

(Case T-295/20) (1)

(Energy - Trans-European energy infrastructure - Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 - Delegated regulation amending the list of projects of common interest - Second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU - Refusal of a Member State to give its approval to a proposed electricity interconnector with a view to granting the status of a project of common interest - Non-inclusion by the Commission of the project in the amended list - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Equal treatment - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Article 10 of the Energy Charter Treaty)

(2023/C 112/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Aquind Ltd (Wallsend, United Kingdom), Aquind SAS (Rouen, France), Aquind Energy Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Goldberg, C. Davis and J. Bille, Solicitors, and by E. White, lawyer)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, A. Daniel, W. Zemamta and R. Bénard, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/389 of 31 October 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the Union list of projects of common interest (OJ 2020 L 74, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aquind Ltd, Aquind SAS and Aquind Energy Sàrl to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aquind Ltd, Aquind SAS and Aquind Energy Sàrl to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — Carpatair v Commission

(Case T-522/20) (1)

(State aid - Aviation sector - Measures implemented by Romania in favour of Timișoara Airport - Measures implemented by Timișoara Airport in favour of Wizz Air and airlines using that airport - Decision finding, in part, that there was no State aid in favour of Timișoara Airport and airlines using that airport - Airport charges - Action for annulment - Regulatory act - Individual concern - Substantial effect on competitive position - Direct concern - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Article 107(1) TFEU - Selective nature - Advantage - Private operator test)

(2023/C 112/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Carpatair SA (Timişoara, Romania) (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés and A. Manzaneque Valverde, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and C. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers), Societăţii Naţionale ‘Aeroportul Internaţional Timişoara — Traian Vuia’ SA (AITTV) (Ghiroda, Romania) (represented by: V. Power and R. Hourihan, Solicitors)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1428 of 24 February 2020 on the State Aid SA.31662 — C/2011 (ex NN/2011) implemented by Romania for Timișoara International Airport — Wizz Air (OJ 2021 L 308, p. 1), in so far as it concludes that certain measures do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1428 of 24 February 2020 on the State Aid SA.31662 — C/2011 (ex NN/2011) implemented by Romania for Timișoara International Airport — Wizz Air in so far as it concludes that the airport charges in the Aeronautical Information Publication of 2010 and the agreements concluded between Societăţii Naţionale ‘Aeroportul Internaţional Timişoara — Traian Vuia’ SA (AITTV) and Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) in 2008 (including the 2010 amendment agreements) do not constitute State aid; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1428 of 24 February 2020 on the State Aid SA.31662 — C/2011 (ex NN/2011) implemented by Romania for Timișoara International Airport — Wizz Air in so far as it concludes that the airport charges in the Aeronautical Information Publication of 2010 and the agreements concluded between Societăţii Naţionale ‘Aeroportul Internaţional Timişoara — Traian Vuia’ SA (AITTV) and Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) in 2008 (including the 2010 amendment agreements) do not constitute State aid;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Carpatair SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Carpatair SA;

| 3. | Orders Wizz Air Hungary and AITTV to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Wizz Air Hungary and AITTV to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 –PBL and WA v Commission

(Case T-538/21) (1)

(State aid - Aid to a professional football club - Refusal to register a complaint lodged by one of the members of a football club - Status of interested party)

(2023/C 112/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Penya Barça Lyon: Plus que des supporters (PBL) (Bron, France) and WA (represented by: J. Branco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action, the applicants seek, under Article 263 TFEU, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision COMP.C.4/AH/mdr 2021(092342) of 1 September 2021 on the status of a complaint submitted in connection with alleged State aid granted to the Paris Saint-Germain football club (SA.64489), and, second, directions to be issued to the European Commission.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Penya Barça Lyon: Plus que des supporters (PBL) and WA to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Penya Barça Lyon: Plus que des supporters (PBL) and WA to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — UniSkin v EUIPO — Unicskin (UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild)

(Case T-787/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild - Earlier national figurative mark UNICSKIN YOUR EFFECTIVE SOLUTION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 112/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UniSkin ApS (Silkeborg, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Unicskin, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 October 2021 (Case R 771/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders UniSkin ApS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders UniSkin ApS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — Bensoussan v EUIPO — Lulu’s Fashion Lounge (LOULOU STUDIO)

(Case T-24/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union word mark LOULOU STUDIO - Earlier international word mark LULU’S - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 112/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ugo Bensoussan (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Bouchara and A. Maier, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lulu’s Fashion Lounge LLC (Chico, California, United States) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, K. Dimidjian-Lecompte and K. Henry, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 November 2021 (Case R 480/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ugo Bensoussan to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ugo Bensoussan to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — Sport1 v EUIPO — SFR (SFR SPORT1)

(Case T-141/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark SFR SPORT 1 - Earlier national and international figurative marks sport1 - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Interdependence between factors)

(2023/C 112/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sport1 GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: J. Krekel and C. Otto, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société française du radiotéléphone — SFR (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Pasquier, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 December 2021 (Case R 2329/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Partially annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 December 2021 (Case R 2329/2020-1), in so far as the Board of Appeal found that there was no likelihood of confusion with regard to the services covered by the mark applied for which are referred to in paragraphs 42 to 44 and 52 to 61 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Partially annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 December 2021 (Case R 2329/2020-1), in so far as the Board of Appeal found that there was no likelihood of confusion with regard to the services covered by the mark applied for which are referred to in paragraphs 42 to 44 and 52 to 61 of that decision;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sport1 GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sport1 GmbH;

| 4. | Orders Société française du radiotéléphone — SFR to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Société française du radiotéléphone — SFR to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/34

---

Order of the General Court of 9 February 2023 — Folkertsma v Commission

(Case T-778/21) (1)

(Action for damages - Contract for technical assistance for support to Bangsamoro transition (Subatra) - Commission’s request to have the applicant replaced as expert - Termination of the contract between the successful tenderer and the applicant - Non-contractual liability - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Causal link - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 112/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rommert Folkertsma (Zierikzee, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and T. Van Noyen, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 268 TFEU, the applicant seeks compensation for the financial and non-material damage which he claims to have suffered following the European Commission’s request to have him replaced as an expert in the context of a European Union technical assistance project in support of the Republic of the Philippines.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Rommert Folkertsma shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Rommert Folkertsma shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/35

---

Order of the General Court of 7 February 2023 — Euranimi v Commission

(Case T-81/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Act not of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 112/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, P. Gjørtler and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, an association representing the interests of European importers, distributors, traders and processors of unintegrated steel, stainless steel and metal products, seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 of 17 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia (OJ 2021 L 410, p. 153).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the European Steel Association (Eurofer)’s application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the European Steel Association (Eurofer)’s application to intervene.

| 3. | European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) shall pay the costs.

| 4. | Euranimi, the European Commission and Eurofer shall each bear their own costs relating to Eurofer’s application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Euranimi, the European Commission and Eurofer shall each bear their own costs relating to Eurofer’s application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/36

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 1 February 2023 — Grodno Azot and Khimvolokno Plant v Council

(Case T-117/22 R)

(Application for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2023/C 112/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Grodno Azot AAT (Grodno, Belarus), Khimvolokno Plant (Grodno) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Boggio-Tomasaz and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicants seek the suspension of operation of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2125 of 2 December 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 430 I, p. 16), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2124 of 2 December 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 430 I, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicants.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/36

---

Order of the General Court of 30 January 2023 — Beijing Unicorn Technology v EUIPO — WD Plus (Device of a circle with two sharp points)

(Case T-631/22) (1)

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

(2023/C 112/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Beijing Unicorn Technology Co. Ltd (Beijing, China) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and S. Clotten, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: WD Plus GmbH (Hannover, Germany)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 July 2022 (Case R 246/2022-2).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Beijing Unicorn Technology Co. Ltd shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Beijing Unicorn Technology Co. Ltd shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 463, 5.12.2022.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/37

---

Action brought on 25 January 2023 — Stevi and The New York Times v Commission

(Case T-36/23)

(2023/C 112/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Matina Stevi (Brussels, Belgium), The New York Times Company (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s confirmatory decision C(2022) 8371 final of 15 November 2022 (‘the contested decision’); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s confirmatory decision C(2022) 8371 final of 15 November 2022 (‘the contested decision’);

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and specifically of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and a violation of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
  By applying an extra-legal argument based on Article 7(1) of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/2121 (2) the Commission has unlawfully set aside Regulation No 1049/2001 and specifically Article 3(a) thereof, considering non-registered text messages as not qualifying as documents under Regulation No 1049/2001 and/or by not applying Article 3(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 to the requested information, also violating the fundamental right to receive information protected under Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By applying an extra-legal argument based on Article 7(1) of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/2121 (2) the Commission has unlawfully set aside Regulation No 1049/2001 and specifically Article 3(a) thereof, considering non-registered text messages as not qualifying as documents under Regulation No 1049/2001 and/or by not applying Article 3(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 to the requested information, also violating the fundamental right to receive information protected under Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Regulation No 1049/2001 and specifically of Article 2(3) thereof.
  By applying an extra-legal argument based on Article 7(1) of Decision 2021/2121, the Commission has unlawfully set aside Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, considering non-registered text messages as not qualifying as documents held by the Commission under Regulation No 1049/2001 and/or by interpreting Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 as leading to the conclusion that the requested information would not be held by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

By applying an extra-legal argument based on Article 7(1) of Decision 2021/2121, the Commission has unlawfully set aside Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, considering non-registered text messages as not qualifying as documents held by the Commission under Regulation No 1049/2001 and/or by interpreting Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 as leading to the conclusion that the requested information would not be held by the Commission.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of good administration and the obligation to state reasons.
  The Commission in the contested decision holds without stating any reasons that the requested information does not exist, contradicting the President of the Commission without any foundation, which qualifies as maladministration. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission in the contested decision holds without stating any reasons that the requested information does not exist, contradicting the President of the Commission without any foundation, which qualifies as maladministration.

---

(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)  Commission Decision (EU) 2021/2121 of 6 July 2020 on records management and archives (OJ 2021, L 430, p. 30).

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/38

---

Action brought on 3 February 2023 — Pollen + Grace v EUIPO — Grace Foods (POLLEN + GRACE)

(Case T-41/23)

(2023/C 112/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pollen + Grace Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Johnson, Barrister-at-Law, and L. Buckley, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grace Foods Ltd (Castries, Saint Lucia)

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 POLLEN + GRACE — Application for registration No 17 099 623

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2022 in Case R 1815/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/39

---

Action brought on 6 February 2023 — Kaili v Parliament and EPPO

(Case T-46/23)

(2023/C 112/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eva Kaili (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Chief Prosecutor of 15 December 2022, requesting the lifting of the parliamentary immunity of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Chief Prosecutor of 15 December 2022, requesting the lifting of the parliamentary immunity of the applicant;

| — | annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 10 January 2023 to announce this request in the plenary session of the Parliament and refer it to the Committee of Legal Affairs; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 10 January 2023 to announce this request in the plenary session of the Parliament and refer it to the Committee of Legal Affairs;

| — | order the defendants to pay their own costs and the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay their own costs and the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings.

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 the lack of competence of the European Chief Prosecutor to issue the contested act: according to the applicable provisions of Article 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, at the time when the European Chief Prosecutor adopted her decision of 15 December 2022, only Member States were entitled to issue such decision. Consequently, the decision of 15 December 2022 of the European Chief Prosecutor was adopted incompetently. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the lack of competence of the European Chief Prosecutor to issue the contested act: according to the applicable provisions of Article 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, at the time when the European Chief Prosecutor adopted her decision of 15 December 2022, only Member States were entitled to issue such decision. Consequently, the decision of 15 December 2022 of the European Chief Prosecutor was adopted incompetently.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of two essential procedural requirements:






  — | Lack of reasoning: The European Chief Prosecutor’s act does not elaborate on i) whether or not the applicant is found in the act of committing an offence; and ii) whether or not the privileges and immunities of the applicant present an obstacle to the investigation of the alleged irregularities; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of two essential procedural requirements:

—

Lack of reasoning: The European Chief Prosecutor’s act does not elaborate on i) whether or not the applicant is found in the act of committing an offence; and ii) whether or not the privileges and immunities of the applicant present an obstacle to the investigation of the alleged irregularities;

| — | Violation of the rights of defence: Neither the European Chief Prosecutor nor the President of the European Parliament allowed the applicant to get copies of the documents on which they based their decisions. In addition, the applicant was not heard prior to the adoption of the contested acts. |
| --- | --- |

—

Violation of the rights of defence: Neither the European Chief Prosecutor nor the President of the European Parliament allowed the applicant to get copies of the documents on which they based their decisions. In addition, the applicant was not heard prior to the adoption of the contested acts.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a lack of sufficient and adequate reasoning infringing Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (1) and/or infringement of the provisions of that Regulation and of the principle of non-retroactivity. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a lack of sufficient and adequate reasoning infringing Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (1) and/or infringement of the provisions of that Regulation and of the principle of non-retroactivity.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of democracy and of the right to a fair trial. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of democracy and of the right to a fair trial.

---

(1)  OJ 2017, L 283, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/40

---

Action brought on 7 February 2023 — Vinet Miłosz Jeleń v EUIPO — The Animal Store, Food and Accessories (WILD INSPIRED)

(Case T-47/23)

(2023/C 112/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Vinet Miłosz Jeleń (Mszalnica, Poland) (represented by: M. Bac-Matuszewska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Animal Store, Food and Accessories, SL (Valencia, Spain)

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 WILD INSPIRED — Application for registration No 18 334 973

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 December 2022 in Case R 1299/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/40

---

Action brought on 8 February 2023 — Olive Line International v EUIPO — Santa Rita Harinas (SANTARRITA)

(Case T-52/23)

(2023/C 112/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Olive Line International, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Santa Rita Harinas, SLU (Loranca de Tajuña, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SANTARRITA — Application for registration No 18 236 520

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2022 in Case R 5772022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and declare that there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks since the co-defendant, the proprietor of the opposing mark, has not proved minimal and genuine use of its sign for the goods fried onions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and declare that there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks since the co-defendant, the proprietor of the opposing mark, has not proved minimal and genuine use of its sign for the goods fried onions;

| — | in the alternative and cumulatively, annul the contested decision and declare that there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks in respect of the goods prepared olives and fried onions in Class 29, as they are different goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative and cumulatively, annul the contested decision and declare that there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks in respect of the goods prepared olives and fried onions in Class 29, as they are different goods;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law

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

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/41

---

Action brought on 8 February 2023 — TVR Automotive v EUIPO — TVR Italia (TVR)

(Case T-53/23)

(2023/C 112/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: TVR Automotive Ltd (Walliswood, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TVR Italia Srl (Milano, Italy)

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 TVR — Application for registration No 12 185 922

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 October 2022 in Case R 1493/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO, and TVR Italia S.R.L., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO, and TVR Italia S.R.L., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/42

---

Action brought on 8 February 2023 — Tiendanimal/EUIPO — Salvana Tiernahrung (SALVAJE)

(Case T-55/23)

(2023/C 112/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tiendanimal Comercio Electronico de Articulos para Mascotas, SL (Malaga, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Salvana Tiernahrung GmbH (Klein Offenseth-Sparrieshoop, 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 SALVAJE — Application for registration No 14 882 666

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2022 in Case R 2192/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | revoke the contested decision as well as the refusal of European trademark application No 14 882 666 SALVAJE (and design) in Class 31 and part of the services in Class 35; and |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the contested decision as well as the refusal of European trademark application No 14 882 666 SALVAJE (and design) in Class 31 and part of the services in Class 35; and

| — | order the defendant and Salvana Tiernahrung GmbH, in case it decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and Salvana Tiernahrung GmbH, in case it decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/43

---

Action brought on 8 February 2023 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Ahlberg-Dollarstore (A’PEAL)

(Case T-56/23)

(2023/C 112/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ahlberg-Dollarstore AB (Kista, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark A’PEAL — Application for registration No 18 337 467

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2022 in Case R 911/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | revoke the contested decision and reject the trademark at issue for all goods in class 3 and 5; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the contested decision and reject the trademark at issue for all goods in class 3 and 5;

| — | order EUIPO and, in case Ahlberg-Dollarstore AB decides to intervene in the present proceedings, Ahlberg-Dollarstore AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, in case Ahlberg-Dollarstore AB decides to intervene in the present proceedings, Ahlberg-Dollarstore AB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/43

---

Action brought on 9 February 2023 — Goldair Tourism v EUIPO — Gkolemis Etaireia (Goldair Tourism)

(Case T-57/23)

(2023/C 112/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Goldair Tourism Touristikes Epicheiriseis AE (Paiania, Greece) (represented by: E. Ventouri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gkolemis Etaireia Aeroporikon Exypiretiseon AE (Marousi, Greece)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Goldair Tourism — European Union trade mark registration No 18 275 928

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2022 in Case R 1385/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision for the part that affects the applicant, that is, for the part that accepted the cancellation request.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Articles 60(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 60(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/44

---

Action brought on 9 February 2023 — Supermac’s v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (BIG MAC)

(Case T-58/23)

(2023/C 112/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Supermac’s (Holdings) Ltd (Galway, Ireland) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd (Chicago, Illinois, United States)

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 word mark BIG MAC — European Union trade mark registration No 62 638

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2022 in Case R 543/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the point 1 of the operative part of the contested decision in so far as it concerns:






  — | ‘foods prepared from meat and poultry products, meat sandwiches, chicken sandwiches’ in Class 29 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; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the point 1 of the operative part of the contested decision in so far as it concerns:

—

‘foods prepared from meat and poultry products, meat sandwiches, chicken sandwiches’ in Class 29 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;

| — | ‘edible sandwiches, chicken sandwiches’ in Class 30; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘edible sandwiches, chicken sandwiches’ in Class 30;

| — | ‘services rendered or associated with operating restaurants and other establishments or facilities engaged in providing food and drink prepared for consumption and for drive- through facilities; preparation of carry-out foods’ in Class 42. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘services rendered or associated with operating restaurants and other establishments or facilities engaged in providing food and drink prepared for consumption and for drive- through facilities; preparation of carry-out foods’ in Class 42.

| — | alter the contested decision to the effect that McDonald’s appeal is dismissed for all goods and services with the exception of ‘‘meat sandwiches’’ in Class 30; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision to the effect that McDonald’s appeal is dismissed for all goods and services with the exception of ‘‘meat sandwiches’’ in Class 30;

| — | order EUIPO and, if McDonald’s intervenes, the McDonald’s International Property Company, Ltd. to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, if McDonald’s intervenes, the McDonald’s International Property Company, Ltd. to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/45

---

Action brought on 10 February 2023 — DEC Technologies v EUIPO — Tehnoexport (DEC FLEXIBLE TECHNOLOGIES)

(Case T-59/23)

(2023/C 112/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: DEC Technologies BV (Enschede, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Brtka, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tehnoexport d.o.o. (Indjija, Serbia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark DEC FLEXIBLE TECHNOLOGIES — European Union trade mark No 18 194 573

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 December 2022 in Case R 2009/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/46

---

Action brought on 9 February 2023 — Ilovepdf v EUIPO (ILOVEPDF)

(Case T-60/23)

(2023/C 112/59)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ilovepdf, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Oriol Asensio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the word mark ILOVEPDF — Application for registration No 18 142 577

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2022 in Case R 641/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision (and the decision at issue dated 12 February 2021) and issue a new decision replacing the previous decisions in order to progress the publication procedure of the sign applied for in the European Union Trade Marks Bulletin, with a view to granting registration of the sign ILOVEPDF, and impose on EUIPO the costs incurred and the reimbursement of the fees paid to EUIPO for the appeal before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Failure to rule on an important preliminary procedural issue concerning the revision of decisions and subsequent repetition of the grounds for refusal, which was omitted from the decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to rule on an important preliminary procedural issue concerning the revision of decisions and subsequent repetition of the grounds for refusal, which was omitted from the decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

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

—

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

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/46

---

Action brought on 10 February 2023 — Ona Investigación v EUIPO — Formdiet (BIOPÔLE)

(Case T-61/23)

(2023/C 112/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ona Investigación, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: T. Villate Consonni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Formdiet, SA (Alcarras, Spain)

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 the European Union word mark BIOPÔLE — Application for registration No 18 157 716

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2022 in Case R 1097/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should grant the form of order sought by the applicant and reject the contested trade mark application.

Plea in law

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

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/47

---

Action brought on 13 February 2023 — Aesculap v EUIPO — Aeneas (AESKUCARE Food Intolerance)

(Case T-64/23)

(2023/C 112/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aesculap AG (Tuttlingen, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aeneas GmbH & Co. KG (Wendelsheim, Germany)

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 the EU figurative mark AESKUCARE Food Intolerance — Application No 17 918 102

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2022 in Case R 21/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it annulled the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 30 November 2021 and rejected the opposition in respect of the claimed goods and services in Classes 5, 42 and 44; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it annulled the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 30 November 2021 and rejected the opposition in respect of the claimed goods and services in Classes 5, 42 and 44;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/48

---

Action brought on 13 February 2023 — Aesculap v EUIPO — Aeneas (AESKUCARE)

(Case T-65/23)

(2023/C 112/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aesculap AG (Tuttlingen, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aeneas GmbH & Co. KG (Wendelsheim, Germany)

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 the EU word mark ‘AESKUCARE’ — Application No 17 789 025

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2022 in Case R 18/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it annulled the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 30 November 2021 and rejected the opposition in respect of the claimed goods and services in Classes 5, 42 and 44; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it annulled the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 30 November 2021 and rejected the opposition in respect of the claimed goods and services in Classes 5, 42 and 44;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/48

---

Action brought on 13 February 2023 — Aesculap v EUIPO — Aeneas (AESKUCARE Allergy)

(Case T-66/23)

(2023/C 112/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aesculap AG (Tuttlingen, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aeneas GmbH & Co. KG (Wendelsheim, Germany)

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 the EU figurative mark AESKUCARE Allergy — Application No 17 917 493

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2022 in Case R 20/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far it annulled the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 30 November 2021 and rejected the opposition in respect of the claimed goods and services in Classes 5, 42 and 44; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far it annulled the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 30 November 2021 and rejected the opposition in respect of the claimed goods and services in Classes 5, 42 and 44;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/49

---

Action brought on 10 February 2023 — DEC Technologies v EUIPO — Tehnoexport (Representation of a square with curves)

(Case T-68/23)

(2023/C 112/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: DEC Technologies BV (Enschede, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Brtka, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tehnoexport d.o.o. (Indjija, Serbia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a square with curves) — European Union trade mark No 18 124 427

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2022 in Case R 2012/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---