# Official Journal C 179/22 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 179 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6622 May 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 179

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6622 May 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2023/C 179/01 | 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 179/01

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 179/02 | Case C-34/21, Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer beim Hessischen Kultusministerium v Minister des Hessischen Kultusministeriums (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 88(1) and (2) — Processing of data in the employment context — Regional school system — Teaching by videoconference as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic — Implementation without the express consent of the teachers) | 2 |
| 2023/C 179/03 | Case C-338/21, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Transfer time limit — Trafficking in human beings): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v S.S., N.Z., S.S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Article 27 — Appeal against a transfer decision taken in respect of an asylum seeker — Article 29 — Suspension of implementation of the transfer decision — Transfer time limit — Interruption of the transfer time limit — Directive 2004/81/EC — Residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities — Article 6 — Reflection period — Prohibition on enforcing an expulsion order — Remedies) | 3 |
| 2023/C 179/04 | Case C-556/21, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Suspension of the transfer time limit on appeal): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v E.N., S.S., J.Y. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Article 27 — Appeal against a decision to transfer an asylum seeker — Article 29 — Transfer time limit — Suspension of that time limit on appeal — Interim measure requested by the authorities) | 3 |
| 2023/C 179/05 | Case C-612/21, Gmina O.: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Gmina O. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(a) and (c) — Supply of goods and services for consideration — Article 9(1) — Meanings of taxable person and economic activity — Municipality which organises the installation of renewable energy on its territory for its residents who own immovable property and who have expressed the wish to be equipped with renewable energy systems — Their contribution amounting to 25 % of the subsidisable costs, without being able to exceed a maximum value agreed between the municipality and the interested property owner — Reimbursement of the municipality by a subsidy from the competent provincial authority of 75 % of the subsidisable costs — Article 13(1) — Municipalities not subject to tax for the activities or transactions carried out as public authorities) | 4 |
| 2023/C 179/06 | Case C-616/21, Gmina L.: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v Gmina L. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c) — Supply of services for consideration — Article 9(1) — Meanings of taxable person and economic activity — Municipality which arranges for asbestos removal for the benefit of its residents who own immovable property and who have expressed the wish for that — Reimbursement of the municipality by a subsidy from the competent provincial authority of 40 % to 100 % of the costs — Article 13(1) — Municipalities not subject to tax for the activities or transactions carried out as public authorities) | 5 |
| 2023/C 179/07 | Case C-618/21, AR and Others (Direct action against the insurer): Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie — Poland) — AR and Others v PK and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 3 — Compulsory insurance of vehicles — Article 18 — Direct right of action — Scope — Determination of the amount of compensation — Hypothetical costs — Possibility of making the payment of compensation subject to certain conditions — Sale of the vehicle) | 6 |
| 2023/C 179/08 | Case C-651/21, M. Ya. M. (Co-heir’s waiver of succession): Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings brought by M. Ya. M. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Measures relating to the law on succession — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Article 13 — Declaration concerning the waiver of a succession made by an heir before the court of the Member State of his or her habitual residence — Subsequent registration of that declaration, at the request of another heir, in the register of another Member State) | 6 |
| 2023/C 179/09 | Case C-5/22, Green Network (Order for repayment of costs): Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Green Network SpA v SF, YB, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market in electricity — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 37 — Annex I — Duties and powers of the national regulatory authority — Consumer protection — Administrative management costs — Power of the national regulatory authority to order the repayment of sums paid by final customers pursuant to contractual terms that have been penalised by that authority) | 7 |
| 2023/C 179/10 | Case C-269/22, IP and Others (Establishment of the accuracy of the facts in the main proceedings — II): Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — IP, DD, ZI, SS, HYA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — The second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to a fair trial — Right to the presumption of innocence — Account of the factual context in a request for a preliminary ruling in criminal matters — Establishment of the accuracy of certain facts in order to be able to make an admissible request for a preliminary ruling to the Court — Compliance with the procedural safeguards provided for under national law for judgments on the merits) | 8 |
| 2023/C 179/11 | Case C-343/22, PT (Order for payment under Swiss law): Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — PT v VB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Lugano II Convention — Procedure on the recognition and enforcement of judgments — Article 34(2) — Document which institutes the proceedings in the State of origin — Due notification of an order for payment followed by improper service of a request for an action for repayment under Swiss law) | 8 |
| 2023/C 179/12 | Case C-285/21, Dalarjo and Others: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial No 1 de Pontevedra — Spain) — Dalarjo SL and Others v Renault Trucks Sasu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Actions for damages for infringements of the provisions of EU competition law — European Commission decision finding an infringement — Specialised trucks — Articulated dumper) | 9 |
| 2023/C 179/13 | Case C-254/22, Caixabank: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca — Spain) — AW, PN v Caixabank SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53 and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 2014/17/EU — Mortgage loan — Variable interest rate — Term providing for the application of an interest rate calculated on the basis of a mortgage loan reference index (IRPH) plus 0,50 % — Criteria for assessing whether such a term is unfair — Requirements of good faith, balance and transparency — Consequences of a finding that the term is unfair) | 10 |
| 2023/C 179/14 | Case C-607/22, Eurowings (Non-existent flight): Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Eurowings GmbH v Flightright GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 2 — Concept of operating air carrier — Flight booked through a tour operator — Allegedly non-existent flight) | 11 |
| 2023/C 179/15 | Case C-485/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KO against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-119/22 AJ, KO v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo | 11 |
| 2023/C 179/16 | Case C-486/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KM against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-120/22 AJ, KM v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo | 12 |
| 2023/C 179/17 | Case C-487/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KR against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-121/22 AJ, KR v Council of the European Union, European Commission and European External Action Service (EEAS) | 12 |
| 2023/C 179/18 | Case C-488/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KQ against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-122/22 AJ, KQ v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo | 12 |
| 2023/C 179/19 | Case C-489/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by VZ against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-127/22 AJ, VZ v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo | 13 |
| 2023/C 179/20 | Case C-490/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KN against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-139/22 AJ, KN v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo | 13 |
| 2023/C 179/21 | Case C-491/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KP against the order of the President of the General Court delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-140/22 AJ, KP v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo | 13 |
| 2023/C 179/22 | Case C-793/22, Biohemp Concept: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 29 December 2022 — Biohemp Concept Srl v Direcția pentru Agricultură Județeană Alba | 14 |
| 2023/C 179/23 | Case C-68/23, Finanzamt O: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2023 — M-GbR v Finanzamt O | 14 |
| 2023/C 179/24 | Case C-81/23, FCA Italy and FPT Industrial: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2023 — MA v FCA Italy SpA and FPT Industrial SpA | 15 |
| 2023/C 179/25 | Case C-85/23, Landkreis Jerichower Land: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany) lodged on 15 February 2023 — Landkreis Jerichower Land v A. | 15 |
| 2023/C 179/26 | Case C-142/23 P: Appeal brought on 8 March 2023 by Hecht Pharma GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 January 2023 in Case T-346/21, Hecht Pharma GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 16 |
| 2023/C 179/27 | Case C-148/23, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 10 March 2023 — Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE v Erg Eolica Ginestra Srl and Others | 18 |
| 2023/C 179/28 | Case C-171/23, UP CAFFE: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 20 March 2023 — UP CAFFE d.o.o. v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske | 18 |
| 2023/C 179/29 | Case C-186/23: Action brought on 23 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria | 19 |
| 2023/C 179/30 | Case C-201/23: Action brought on 28 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 20 |
| 2023/C 179/31 | Case C-211/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic | 21 |
| 2023/C 179/32 | Case C-214/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark | 22 |
| | General Court |
| 2023/C 179/33 | Case T-500/17 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (excluding cast iron) or steel (excluding stainless steel), of circular cross-section and of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, originating in China — Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Causal link — Article 3(6) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Manifest error of assessment) | 24 |
| 2023/C 179/34 | Case T-660/19 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Universität Bremen v REA (Research and technological development — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 — Call for proposals H2020-SC6-Governance-2019 — REA decision rejecting a proposal — Error of fact — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment) | 24 |
| 2023/C 179/35 | Joined Cases T-825/19 and T-826/19: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Tazzetti v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 — Fluorinated greenhouse gases — Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market — Undertakings with the same beneficial owner — Single producer or importer — Act having an adverse effect — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Request to modify the application — Inadmissibility — Plea of illegality — Interpretation of an implementing regulation consistent with the basic regulation — Implementing power of the Commission) | 25 |
| 2023/C 179/36 | Case T-868/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Nouryon Industrial Chemicals and Others v Commission (REACH — Evaluation of registration dossiers and compliance check of information provided by registrants — Request for further studies for the purposes of the registration dossier for dimethyl ether — Pre-natal developmental toxicity study — Extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study — Dose-range finding study — Article 51(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Animal testing — Article 25 of Regulation No 1907/2006 — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality) | 26 |
| 2023/C 179/37 | Case T-72/20: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Satabank v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 — Supervised entity — Composite administrative procedure — Denial of access to the file — Decision 2004/258/EC — Access to ECB documents) | 27 |
| 2023/C 179/38 | Case T-142/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Wizz Air Hungary v Commission (Blue Air; COVID-19 and rescue aid) (State aid — Romanian air transport market — Aid granted by Romania to Blue Air in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic — Blue Air rescue aid — Loan guaranteed by the Romanian State — Decision not to raise any objections — Action for annulment — Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence — Article 107(2)(b) TFEU — Assessment of the damage — Causal link — Beneficiary’s pre-existing difficulties — Taking avoidable costs into account — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Contribution of the aid to an objective of common interest — One time, last time condition for rescue aid — Principle of non-discrimination — Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Obligation to state reasons) | 27 |
| 2023/C 179/39 | Case T-344/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Plusmusic v EUIPO — Groupe Canal + (+music) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark +music — Earlier national figurative mark + — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use) | 28 |
| 2023/C 179/40 | Case T-366/21: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Coinbase v EUIPO — bitFlyer (coinbase) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark coinbase — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 29 |
| 2023/C 179/41 | Case T-400/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — ZR v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — Vacancy notice — Application for interinstitutional transfer — First paragraph of Article 8 of the Staff Regulations — Transfer refusal — Priority order — Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Duty of care — Corrigendum) | 29 |
| 2023/C 179/42 | Case T-505/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002) | 30 |
| 2023/C 179/43 | Case T-535/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002) | 30 |
| 2023/C 179/44 | Case T-545/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002) | 31 |
| 2023/C 179/45 | Case T-555/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002) | 32 |
| 2023/C 179/46 | Case T-575/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002) | 32 |
| 2023/C 179/47 | Case T-576/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002) | 33 |
| 2023/C 179/48 | Case T-577/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002) | 34 |
| 2023/C 179/49 | Case T-578/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002) | 34 |
| 2023/C 179/50 | Case T-588/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a part of the fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002) | 35 |
| 2023/C 179/51 | Case T-617/21: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — B&Bartoni v EUIPO — Hypertherm (Electrode to insert into a torch) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an electrode to insert into a torch — Ground for invalidity — Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Component part of a complex product) | 36 |
| 2023/C 179/52 | Case T-650/21: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Casa International v EUIPO — Interstyle (casa) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark casa — Absolute ground for invalidity — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 36 |
| 2023/C 179/53 | Case T-750/21: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BIO-BEAUTÉ) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark BIO-BEAUTÉ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 52(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 37 |
| 2023/C 179/54 | Case T-5/22: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Puma v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (Representation of a band with an acute angle) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a band with an acute angle — Earlier EU and national figurative marks representing a band — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Legal certainty — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration) | 38 |
| 2023/C 179/55 | Case T-21/22: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — NY v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Commission’s internal security investigation — Alleged acts of violence by the Commission’s security personnel — Prohibition of entry into buildings — Confiscation of service pass — Claim for compensation — Dismissal of the claim — Principle of good administration — Right to integrity and dignity — Error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials) | 38 |
| 2023/C 179/56 | Case T-26/22: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — CIMV v Commission (Research and technological development — Grant agreement concluded in the context of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation — Recovery of a debt — Repayment by instalments — Substantive accuracy of the facts — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Right to be heard — Proportionality) | 39 |
| 2023/C 179/57 | Case T-113/22: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Colombani v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Refusal of the request — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Rights of the defence — Error of assessment — Misuse of powers — Amicable settlement — Lack of consent — Retroactive promotion decision) | 39 |
| 2023/C 179/58 | Case T-199/22: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Perfetti Van Melle v EUIPO (Representation of a cylindrical container with a wavy outline) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a cylindrical container with a wavy outline — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons) | 40 |
| 2023/C 179/59 | Case T-306/22: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Fun Factory v EUIPO — I Love You (love you so much) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark love you so much — Earlier EU figurative mark I LOVE YOU SINCE FOREVER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 41 |
| 2023/C 179/60 | Case T-308/22: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — celotec v EUIPO — Decotec Printing (DECOTEC) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark DECOTEC — Absolute ground for invalidity — Lack of descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 41 |
| 2023/C 179/61 | Case T-408/22: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — adp Merkur v EUIPO — psmtec (SEVEN SEVEN 7) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark SEVEN SEVEN 7 — Earlier EU word mark Seven — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No genuine use — Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 42 |
| 2023/C 179/62 | Case T-436/22: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Machková v EUIPO — Aceites Almenara (ALMARA SOAP) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ALMARA SOAP — Earlier EU word mark ALMENARA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 42 |
| 2023/C 179/63 | Case T-196/22: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Mariani v Parliament (Action for annulment — Law governing the Institutions — Member of Parliament — Decision excluding from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of the term of office — Measure of internal organisation of the work of the Parliament — No effect on the conditions under which the mandate of a Member of Parliament is exercised — Act not open to challenge — Manifest inadmissibility) | 43 |
| 2023/C 179/64 | Case T-240/22: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Lacapelle v Parliament (Action for annulment — Law governing the Institutions — Member of Parliament — Decision excluding from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of the term of office — Measure of internal organisation of the work of the Parliament — No effect on the conditions under which the mandate of a Member of Parliament is exercised — Act not open to challenge — Manifest inadmissibility) | 44 |
| 2023/C 179/65 | Case T-241/22: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Juvin v Parliament (Action for annulment — Law governing the Institutions — Member of Parliament — Decision excluding from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of the term of office — Measure of internal organisation of the work of the Parliament — No effect on the conditions under which the mandate of a Member of Parliament is exercised — Act not open to challenge — Manifest inadmissibility) | 44 |
| 2023/C 179/66 | Case T-254/22: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Mordalski v EUIPO — Anita Food (ANITA) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — EU trade mark that has ceased to exist — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 45 |
| 2023/C 179/67 | Case T-300/22: Order of the General Court of 23 March 2023 — Domaine Boyar International v EUIPO — Consorzio DOC Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia (BOLGARÉ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BOLGARÉ — Previous designation of origin Bolgheri — Article 8(4a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 46(1)(d) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013) | 45 |
| 2023/C 179/68 | Case T-342/22: Order of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Oxyzoglou v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Retirement pensions — Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU — Transfer to the EU scheme — Additional years of pensionable service — Action for annulment — Claim for repayment of part of the capital transferred — Unjust enrichment — Time limit for complaints — Manifest inadmissibility — Application for an order — Manifest lack of jurisdiction) | 46 |
| 2023/C 179/69 | Case T-343/22: Order of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Mozelsio v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Retirement pensions — Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU — Transfer to the EU scheme — Additional years of pensionable service — Action for annulment — Claim for repayment of part of the capital transferred — Unjust enrichment — Time limit for complaints — Manifest inadmissibility — Application for an order — Manifest lack of jurisdiction) | 47 |
| 2023/C 179/70 | Case T-482/22: Order of the General Court of 31 March 2023 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (MATE MATE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MATE MATE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Misleading character — Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 47 |
| 2023/C 179/71 | Case T-567/22: Order of the General Court of 30 March 2023 — ATPN v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 — Nuclear energy — Sustainable activity — Association — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility) | 48 |
| 2023/C 179/72 | Case T-612/22: Order of the General Court of 28 March 2023 — Primicerj v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Initial refusal of access — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — Request for the Court to issue directions — Lack of jurisdiction) | 49 |
| 2023/C 179/73 | Case T-776/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — TP v Commission (Interim relief — Public procurement — Financial Regulation — Exclusion from procurement procedures funded by the general budget of the European Union and by the EDF for a period of two years — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of any urgency) | 49 |
| 2023/C 179/74 | Case T-782/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 27 March 2023 — Cogebi and Cogebi v Council (Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Prohibition on purchasing, importing or transferring, directly or indirectly, goods which generate significant revenues for Russia into the Union — Application for suspension of operation — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility) | 50 |
| 2023/C 179/75 | Case T-1/23 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 27 March 2023 — Enmacc v Commission (Interim relief — Public supply contracts — Services for the organisation of demand aggregation and tendering of gas under the EU Energy Platform — Application for interim measures — Weighing of interests) | 51 |
| 2023/C 179/76 | Case T-9/23: Action brought on 9 January 2023 — Koppers Denmark and Others v Commission | 51 |
| 2023/C 179/77 | Case T-17/23: Action brought on 20 January 2023 — Feport v Commission | 52 |
| 2023/C 179/78 | Case T-18/23: Action brought on 20 January 2023 — Greece v Commission | 53 |
| 2023/C 179/79 | Case T-37/23: Action brought on 23 January 2023 — Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) and Others v Commission | 54 |
| 2023/C 179/80 | Case T-44/23: Action brought on 6 February 2023 — FFPE Council section v Council | 55 |
| 2023/C 179/81 | Case T-94/23: Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Pollinis France v Commission | 55 |
| 2023/C 179/82 | Case T-104/23: Action brought on 21 February 2023 — PAN Europe v Commission | 57 |
| 2023/C 179/83 | Case T-124/23: Action brought on 28 February 2023 — VB v BCE | 58 |
| 2023/C 179/84 | Case T-131/23: Action brought on 13 March 2023 — Nardi v ECB | 58 |
| 2023/C 179/85 | Case T-137/23: Action brought on 10 March 2023 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission | 60 |
| 2023/C 179/86 | Case T-147/23: Action brought on 17 March 2023 — VI v Commission | 61 |
| 2023/C 179/87 | Case T-148/23: Action brought on 18 March 2023 — VK v Commission | 62 |
| 2023/C 179/88 | Case T-154/23: Action brought on 20 March 2023 — MBDA France v Commission | 62 |
| 2023/C 179/89 | Case T-158/23: Action brought on 23 March 2023 — Colombani v EEAS | 64 |
| 2023/C 179/90 | Case T-159/23: Action brought on 24 March 2023 — VN v Commission | 64 |
| 2023/C 179/91 | Case T-163/23: Action brought on 24 March 2023 — Fritz Egger and Others v ECHA | 65 |
| 2023/C 179/92 | Case T-164/23: Action brought on 27 March 2023 — Drinks Prod v EUIPO — Wolff and Illg (IGISAN) | 66 |
| 2023/C 179/93 | Case T-165/23: Action brought on 28 March 2023 — Arkema France v Commission | 67 |
| 2023/C 179/94 | Case T-167/23: Action brought on 24 March 2023 — Borealis Agrolinz Melamine Deutschland and Cornerstone v ECHA | 68 |
| 2023/C 179/95 | Case T-170/23: Action brought on 29 March 2023 — Amstel Brouwerij v EUIPO — Anheuser-Busch (ULTRA) | 69 |
| 2023/C 179/96 | Case T-172/23: Action brought on 30 March 2023 — Dendiki v EUIPO — D-Market (hepsiburada) | 69 |
| 2023/C 179/97 | Case T-173/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — Simpson Performance Products v EUIPO — Freundlieb (BANDIT) | 70 |
| 2023/C 179/98 | Case T-175/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — Hong Kong NetEase Interactive Entertainment v EUIPO — Medion (LifeAfter) | 71 |
| 2023/C 179/99 | Case T-176/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — PT Musim Mas v Commission | 71 |
| 2023/C 179/100 | Case T-177/23: Action brought on 3 April 2023 — Lacroix v EUIPO — Xingyu Safety Tech (ADAMAS) | 72 |
| 2023/C 179/101 | Case T-179/23: Action brought on 5 April 2023 — FFPE Council section v Council | 73 |
| 2023/C 179/102 | Case T-180/23: Action brought on 5 April 2023 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Samar’t Pharma (Bl blue pigment) | 74 |
| 2023/C 179/103 | Case T-181/23: Action brought on 10 April 2023 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM) | 74 |
| 2023/C 179/104 | Case T-184/23: Action brought on 11 April 2023 — Puma v EUIPO — Société d’équipements de boulangerie pâtisserie (BERTRAND PUMA La griffe boulangère) | 75 |
| 2023/C 179/105 | Case T-187/23: Action brought on 11 April 2023 — PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo and PT Nubika Jaya v Commission | 76 |
| 2023/C 179/106 | Case T-784/21: Order of the General Court of 28 March 2023 — Félix v Commission | 76 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2023/C 179/02

Case C-34/21, Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer beim Hessischen Kultusministerium v Minister des Hessischen Kultusministeriums (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 88(1) and (2) — Processing of data in the employment context — Regional school system — Teaching by videoconference as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic — Implementation without the express consent of the teachers)

2

2023/C 179/03

Case C-338/21, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Transfer time limit — Trafficking in human beings): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v S.S., N.Z., S.S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Article 27 — Appeal against a transfer decision taken in respect of an asylum seeker — Article 29 — Suspension of implementation of the transfer decision — Transfer time limit — Interruption of the transfer time limit — Directive 2004/81/EC — Residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities — Article 6 — Reflection period — Prohibition on enforcing an expulsion order — Remedies)

3

2023/C 179/04

Case C-556/21, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Suspension of the transfer time limit on appeal): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v E.N., S.S., J.Y. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Article 27 — Appeal against a decision to transfer an asylum seeker — Article 29 — Transfer time limit — Suspension of that time limit on appeal — Interim measure requested by the authorities)

3

2023/C 179/05

Case C-612/21, Gmina O.: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Gmina O. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(a) and (c) — Supply of goods and services for consideration — Article 9(1) — Meanings of taxable person and economic activity — Municipality which organises the installation of renewable energy on its territory for its residents who own immovable property and who have expressed the wish to be equipped with renewable energy systems — Their contribution amounting to 25 % of the subsidisable costs, without being able to exceed a maximum value agreed between the municipality and the interested property owner — Reimbursement of the municipality by a subsidy from the competent provincial authority of 75 % of the subsidisable costs — Article 13(1) — Municipalities not subject to tax for the activities or transactions carried out as public authorities)

4

2023/C 179/06

Case C-616/21, Gmina L.: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v Gmina L. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c) — Supply of services for consideration — Article 9(1) — Meanings of taxable person and economic activity — Municipality which arranges for asbestos removal for the benefit of its residents who own immovable property and who have expressed the wish for that — Reimbursement of the municipality by a subsidy from the competent provincial authority of 40 % to 100 % of the costs — Article 13(1) — Municipalities not subject to tax for the activities or transactions carried out as public authorities)

5

2023/C 179/07

Case C-618/21, AR and Others (Direct action against the insurer): Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie — Poland) — AR and Others v PK and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 3 — Compulsory insurance of vehicles — Article 18 — Direct right of action — Scope — Determination of the amount of compensation — Hypothetical costs — Possibility of making the payment of compensation subject to certain conditions — Sale of the vehicle)

6

2023/C 179/08

Case C-651/21, M. Ya. M. (Co-heir’s waiver of succession): Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings brought by M. Ya. M. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Measures relating to the law on succession — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Article 13 — Declaration concerning the waiver of a succession made by an heir before the court of the Member State of his or her habitual residence — Subsequent registration of that declaration, at the request of another heir, in the register of another Member State)

6

2023/C 179/09

Case C-5/22, Green Network (Order for repayment of costs): Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Green Network SpA v SF, YB, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market in electricity — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 37 — Annex I — Duties and powers of the national regulatory authority — Consumer protection — Administrative management costs — Power of the national regulatory authority to order the repayment of sums paid by final customers pursuant to contractual terms that have been penalised by that authority)

7

2023/C 179/10

Case C-269/22, IP and Others (Establishment of the accuracy of the facts in the main proceedings — II): Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — IP, DD, ZI, SS, HYA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — The second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to a fair trial — Right to the presumption of innocence — Account of the factual context in a request for a preliminary ruling in criminal matters — Establishment of the accuracy of certain facts in order to be able to make an admissible request for a preliminary ruling to the Court — Compliance with the procedural safeguards provided for under national law for judgments on the merits)

8

2023/C 179/11

Case C-343/22, PT (Order for payment under Swiss law): Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — PT v VB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Lugano II Convention — Procedure on the recognition and enforcement of judgments — Article 34(2) — Document which institutes the proceedings in the State of origin — Due notification of an order for payment followed by improper service of a request for an action for repayment under Swiss law)

8

2023/C 179/12

Case C-285/21, Dalarjo and Others: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial No 1 de Pontevedra — Spain) — Dalarjo SL and Others v Renault Trucks Sasu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Actions for damages for infringements of the provisions of EU competition law — European Commission decision finding an infringement — Specialised trucks — Articulated dumper)

9

2023/C 179/13

Case C-254/22, Caixabank: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca — Spain) — AW, PN v Caixabank SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53 and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 2014/17/EU — Mortgage loan — Variable interest rate — Term providing for the application of an interest rate calculated on the basis of a mortgage loan reference index (IRPH) plus 0,50 % — Criteria for assessing whether such a term is unfair — Requirements of good faith, balance and transparency — Consequences of a finding that the term is unfair)

10

2023/C 179/14

Case C-607/22, Eurowings (Non-existent flight): Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Eurowings GmbH v Flightright GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 2 — Concept of operating air carrier — Flight booked through a tour operator — Allegedly non-existent flight)

11

2023/C 179/15

Case C-485/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KO against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-119/22 AJ, KO v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

11

2023/C 179/16

Case C-486/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KM against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-120/22 AJ, KM v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

12

2023/C 179/17

Case C-487/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KR against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-121/22 AJ, KR v Council of the European Union, European Commission and European External Action Service (EEAS)

12

2023/C 179/18

Case C-488/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KQ against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-122/22 AJ, KQ v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

12

2023/C 179/19

Case C-489/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by VZ against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-127/22 AJ, VZ v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

13

2023/C 179/20

Case C-490/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KN against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-139/22 AJ, KN v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

13

2023/C 179/21

Case C-491/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KP against the order of the President of the General Court delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-140/22 AJ, KP v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

13

2023/C 179/22

Case C-793/22, Biohemp Concept: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 29 December 2022 — Biohemp Concept Srl v Direcția pentru Agricultură Județeană Alba

14

2023/C 179/23

Case C-68/23, Finanzamt O: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2023 — M-GbR v Finanzamt O

14

2023/C 179/24

Case C-81/23, FCA Italy and FPT Industrial: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2023 — MA v FCA Italy SpA and FPT Industrial SpA

15

2023/C 179/25

Case C-85/23, Landkreis Jerichower Land: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany) lodged on 15 February 2023 — Landkreis Jerichower Land v A.

15

2023/C 179/26

Case C-142/23 P: Appeal brought on 8 March 2023 by Hecht Pharma GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 January 2023 in Case T-346/21, Hecht Pharma GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

16

2023/C 179/27

Case C-148/23, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 10 March 2023 — Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE v Erg Eolica Ginestra Srl and Others

18

2023/C 179/28

Case C-171/23, UP CAFFE: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 20 March 2023 — UP CAFFE d.o.o. v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske

18

2023/C 179/29

Case C-186/23: Action brought on 23 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

19

2023/C 179/30

Case C-201/23: Action brought on 28 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

20

2023/C 179/31

Case C-211/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

21

2023/C 179/32

Case C-214/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

22

General Court

2023/C 179/33

Case T-500/17 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (excluding cast iron) or steel (excluding stainless steel), of circular cross-section and of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, originating in China — Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Causal link — Article 3(6) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Manifest error of assessment)

24

2023/C 179/34

Case T-660/19 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Universität Bremen v REA (Research and technological development — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 — Call for proposals H2020-SC6-Governance-2019 — REA decision rejecting a proposal — Error of fact — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment)

24

2023/C 179/35

Joined Cases T-825/19 and T-826/19: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Tazzetti v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 — Fluorinated greenhouse gases — Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market — Undertakings with the same beneficial owner — Single producer or importer — Act having an adverse effect — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Request to modify the application — Inadmissibility — Plea of illegality — Interpretation of an implementing regulation consistent with the basic regulation — Implementing power of the Commission)

25

2023/C 179/36

Case T-868/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Nouryon Industrial Chemicals and Others v Commission (REACH — Evaluation of registration dossiers and compliance check of information provided by registrants — Request for further studies for the purposes of the registration dossier for dimethyl ether — Pre-natal developmental toxicity study — Extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study — Dose-range finding study — Article 51(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Animal testing — Article 25 of Regulation No 1907/2006 — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality)

26

2023/C 179/37

Case T-72/20: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Satabank v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 — Supervised entity — Composite administrative procedure — Denial of access to the file — Decision 2004/258/EC — Access to ECB documents)

27

2023/C 179/38

Case T-142/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Wizz Air Hungary v Commission (Blue Air; COVID-19 and rescue aid) (State aid — Romanian air transport market — Aid granted by Romania to Blue Air in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic — Blue Air rescue aid — Loan guaranteed by the Romanian State — Decision not to raise any objections — Action for annulment — Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence — Article 107(2)(b) TFEU — Assessment of the damage — Causal link — Beneficiary’s pre-existing difficulties — Taking avoidable costs into account — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Contribution of the aid to an objective of common interest — One time, last time condition for rescue aid — Principle of non-discrimination — Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Obligation to state reasons)

27

2023/C 179/39

Case T-344/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Plusmusic v EUIPO — Groupe Canal + (+music) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark +music — Earlier national figurative mark + — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use)

28

2023/C 179/40

Case T-366/21: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Coinbase v EUIPO — bitFlyer (coinbase) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark coinbase — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

29

2023/C 179/41

Case T-400/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — ZR v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — Vacancy notice — Application for interinstitutional transfer — First paragraph of Article 8 of the Staff Regulations — Transfer refusal — Priority order — Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Duty of care — Corrigendum)

29

2023/C 179/42

Case T-505/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

30

2023/C 179/43

Case T-535/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

30

2023/C 179/44

Case T-545/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

31

2023/C 179/45

Case T-555/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

32

2023/C 179/46

Case T-575/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

32

2023/C 179/47

Case T-576/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

33

2023/C 179/48

Case T-577/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

34

2023/C 179/49

Case T-578/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

34

2023/C 179/50

Case T-588/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a part of the fluid distribution equipment — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

35

2023/C 179/51

Case T-617/21: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — B&Bartoni v EUIPO — Hypertherm (Electrode to insert into a torch) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an electrode to insert into a torch — Ground for invalidity — Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Component part of a complex product)

36

2023/C 179/52

Case T-650/21: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Casa International v EUIPO — Interstyle (casa) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark casa — Absolute ground for invalidity — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

36

2023/C 179/53

Case T-750/21: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BIO-BEAUTÉ) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark BIO-BEAUTÉ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 52(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence of Regulation 2017/1001))

37

2023/C 179/54

Case T-5/22: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Puma v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (Representation of a band with an acute angle) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a band with an acute angle — Earlier EU and national figurative marks representing a band — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Legal certainty — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration)

38

2023/C 179/55

Case T-21/22: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — NY v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Commission’s internal security investigation — Alleged acts of violence by the Commission’s security personnel — Prohibition of entry into buildings — Confiscation of service pass — Claim for compensation — Dismissal of the claim — Principle of good administration — Right to integrity and dignity — Error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

38

2023/C 179/56

Case T-26/22: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — CIMV v Commission (Research and technological development — Grant agreement concluded in the context of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation — Recovery of a debt — Repayment by instalments — Substantive accuracy of the facts — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Right to be heard — Proportionality)

39

2023/C 179/57

Case T-113/22: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Colombani v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Refusal of the request — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Rights of the defence — Error of assessment — Misuse of powers — Amicable settlement — Lack of consent — Retroactive promotion decision)

39

2023/C 179/58

Case T-199/22: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Perfetti Van Melle v EUIPO (Representation of a cylindrical container with a wavy outline) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a cylindrical container with a wavy outline — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons)

40

2023/C 179/59

Case T-306/22: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Fun Factory v EUIPO — I Love You (love you so much) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark love you so much — Earlier EU figurative mark I LOVE YOU SINCE FOREVER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

41

2023/C 179/60

Case T-308/22: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — celotec v EUIPO — Decotec Printing (DECOTEC) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark DECOTEC — Absolute ground for invalidity — Lack of descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

41

2023/C 179/61

Case T-408/22: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — adp Merkur v EUIPO — psmtec (SEVEN SEVEN 7) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark SEVEN SEVEN 7 — Earlier EU word mark Seven — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No genuine use — Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

42

2023/C 179/62

Case T-436/22: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Machková v EUIPO — Aceites Almenara (ALMARA SOAP) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ALMARA SOAP — Earlier EU word mark ALMENARA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

42

2023/C 179/63

Case T-196/22: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Mariani v Parliament (Action for annulment — Law governing the Institutions — Member of Parliament — Decision excluding from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of the term of office — Measure of internal organisation of the work of the Parliament — No effect on the conditions under which the mandate of a Member of Parliament is exercised — Act not open to challenge — Manifest inadmissibility)

43

2023/C 179/64

Case T-240/22: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Lacapelle v Parliament (Action for annulment — Law governing the Institutions — Member of Parliament — Decision excluding from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of the term of office — Measure of internal organisation of the work of the Parliament — No effect on the conditions under which the mandate of a Member of Parliament is exercised — Act not open to challenge — Manifest inadmissibility)

44

2023/C 179/65

Case T-241/22: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Juvin v Parliament (Action for annulment — Law governing the Institutions — Member of Parliament — Decision excluding from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of the term of office — Measure of internal organisation of the work of the Parliament — No effect on the conditions under which the mandate of a Member of Parliament is exercised — Act not open to challenge — Manifest inadmissibility)

44

2023/C 179/66

Case T-254/22: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Mordalski v EUIPO — Anita Food (ANITA) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — EU trade mark that has ceased to exist — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

45

2023/C 179/67

Case T-300/22: Order of the General Court of 23 March 2023 — Domaine Boyar International v EUIPO — Consorzio DOC Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia (BOLGARÉ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BOLGARÉ — Previous designation of origin Bolgheri — Article 8(4a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 46(1)(d) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013)

45

2023/C 179/68

Case T-342/22: Order of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Oxyzoglou v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Retirement pensions — Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU — Transfer to the EU scheme — Additional years of pensionable service — Action for annulment — Claim for repayment of part of the capital transferred — Unjust enrichment — Time limit for complaints — Manifest inadmissibility — Application for an order — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

46

2023/C 179/69

Case T-343/22: Order of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Mozelsio v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Retirement pensions — Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU — Transfer to the EU scheme — Additional years of pensionable service — Action for annulment — Claim for repayment of part of the capital transferred — Unjust enrichment — Time limit for complaints — Manifest inadmissibility — Application for an order — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

47

2023/C 179/70

Case T-482/22: Order of the General Court of 31 March 2023 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (MATE MATE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MATE MATE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Misleading character — Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

47

2023/C 179/71

Case T-567/22: Order of the General Court of 30 March 2023 — ATPN v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 — Nuclear energy — Sustainable activity — Association — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

48

2023/C 179/72

Case T-612/22: Order of the General Court of 28 March 2023 — Primicerj v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Initial refusal of access — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — Request for the Court to issue directions — Lack of jurisdiction)

49

2023/C 179/73

Case T-776/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — TP v Commission (Interim relief — Public procurement — Financial Regulation — Exclusion from procurement procedures funded by the general budget of the European Union and by the EDF for a period of two years — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of any urgency)

49

2023/C 179/74

Case T-782/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 27 March 2023 — Cogebi and Cogebi v Council (Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Prohibition on purchasing, importing or transferring, directly or indirectly, goods which generate significant revenues for Russia into the Union — Application for suspension of operation — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

50

2023/C 179/75

Case T-1/23 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 27 March 2023 — Enmacc v Commission (Interim relief — Public supply contracts — Services for the organisation of demand aggregation and tendering of gas under the EU Energy Platform — Application for interim measures — Weighing of interests)

51

2023/C 179/76

Case T-9/23: Action brought on 9 January 2023 — Koppers Denmark and Others v Commission

51

2023/C 179/77

Case T-17/23: Action brought on 20 January 2023 — Feport v Commission

52

2023/C 179/78

Case T-18/23: Action brought on 20 January 2023 — Greece v Commission

53

2023/C 179/79

Case T-37/23: Action brought on 23 January 2023 — Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) and Others v Commission

54

2023/C 179/80

Case T-44/23: Action brought on 6 February 2023 — FFPE Council section v Council

55

2023/C 179/81

Case T-94/23: Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Pollinis France v Commission

55

2023/C 179/82

Case T-104/23: Action brought on 21 February 2023 — PAN Europe v Commission

57

2023/C 179/83

Case T-124/23: Action brought on 28 February 2023 — VB v BCE

58

2023/C 179/84

Case T-131/23: Action brought on 13 March 2023 — Nardi v ECB

58

2023/C 179/85

Case T-137/23: Action brought on 10 March 2023 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission

60

2023/C 179/86

Case T-147/23: Action brought on 17 March 2023 — VI v Commission

61

2023/C 179/87

Case T-148/23: Action brought on 18 March 2023 — VK v Commission

62

2023/C 179/88

Case T-154/23: Action brought on 20 March 2023 — MBDA France v Commission

62

2023/C 179/89

Case T-158/23: Action brought on 23 March 2023 — Colombani v EEAS

64

2023/C 179/90

Case T-159/23: Action brought on 24 March 2023 — VN v Commission

64

2023/C 179/91

Case T-163/23: Action brought on 24 March 2023 — Fritz Egger and Others v ECHA

65

2023/C 179/92

Case T-164/23: Action brought on 27 March 2023 — Drinks Prod v EUIPO — Wolff and Illg (IGISAN)

66

2023/C 179/93

Case T-165/23: Action brought on 28 March 2023 — Arkema France v Commission

67

2023/C 179/94

Case T-167/23: Action brought on 24 March 2023 — Borealis Agrolinz Melamine Deutschland and Cornerstone v ECHA

68

2023/C 179/95

Case T-170/23: Action brought on 29 March 2023 — Amstel Brouwerij v EUIPO — Anheuser-Busch (ULTRA)

69

2023/C 179/96

Case T-172/23: Action brought on 30 March 2023 — Dendiki v EUIPO — D-Market (hepsiburada)

69

2023/C 179/97

Case T-173/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — Simpson Performance Products v EUIPO — Freundlieb (BANDIT)

70

2023/C 179/98

Case T-175/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — Hong Kong NetEase Interactive Entertainment v EUIPO — Medion (LifeAfter)

71

2023/C 179/99

Case T-176/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — PT Musim Mas v Commission

71

2023/C 179/100

Case T-177/23: Action brought on 3 April 2023 — Lacroix v EUIPO — Xingyu Safety Tech (ADAMAS)

72

2023/C 179/101

Case T-179/23: Action brought on 5 April 2023 — FFPE Council section v Council

73

2023/C 179/102

Case T-180/23: Action brought on 5 April 2023 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Samar’t Pharma (Bl blue pigment)

74

2023/C 179/103

Case T-181/23: Action brought on 10 April 2023 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM)

74

2023/C 179/104

Case T-184/23: Action brought on 11 April 2023 — Puma v EUIPO — Société d’équipements de boulangerie pâtisserie (BERTRAND PUMA La griffe boulangère)

75

2023/C 179/105

Case T-187/23: Action brought on 11 April 2023 — PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo and PT Nubika Jaya v Commission

76

2023/C 179/106

Case T-784/21: Order of the General Court of 28 March 2023 — Félix v Commission

76

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/1

---

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

(2023/C 179/01)

Last publication

OJ C 173, 15.5.2023

Past publications

OJ C 164, 8.5.2023

OJ C 155, 2.5.2023

OJ C 134, 17.4.2023

OJ C 127, 11.4.2023

OJ C 121, 3.4.2023

OJ C 112, 27.3.2023

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer beim Hessischen Kultusministerium v Minister des Hessischen Kultusministeriums

(Case C-34/21, (1) Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 88(1) and (2) - Processing of data in the employment context - Regional school system - Teaching by videoconference as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic - Implementation without the express consent of the teachers)

(2023/C 179/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer beim Hessischen Kultusministerium

Defendant: Minister des Hessischen Kultusministeriums

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 88 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)
  must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation cannot constitute a ‘more specific rule’, within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that article, where it does not satisfy the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 of that article. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 88 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)

must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation cannot constitute a ‘more specific rule’, within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that article, where it does not satisfy the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 of that article.

| 2. | Article 88(1) and (2) of Regulation 2016/679
  must be interpreted as meaning that the application of national provisions adopted to ensure the protection of employees’ rights and freedoms in respect of the processing of their personal data in the employment context must be disregarded where those provisions do not comply with the conditions and limits laid down in Article 88(1) and (2), unless those provisions constitute a legal basis referred to in Article 6(3) of that regulation, which complies with the requirements laid down by that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 88(1) and (2) of Regulation 2016/679

must be interpreted as meaning that the application of national provisions adopted to ensure the protection of employees’ rights and freedoms in respect of the processing of their personal data in the employment context must be disregarded where those provisions do not comply with the conditions and limits laid down in Article 88(1) and (2), unless those provisions constitute a legal basis referred to in Article 6(3) of that regulation, which complies with the requirements laid down by that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v S.S., N.Z., S.S

(Case C-338/21, (1) Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Transfer time limit — Trafficking in human beings))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Article 27 - Appeal against a transfer decision taken in respect of an asylum seeker - Article 29 - Suspension of implementation of the transfer decision - Transfer time limit - Interruption of the transfer time limit - Directive 2004/81/EC - Residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities - Article 6 - Reflection period - Prohibition on enforcing an expulsion order - Remedies)

(2023/C 179/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Defendants: S.S., N.Z., S.S

Operative part of the judgment

Article 29(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction with Article 27(3) of that regulation,

must be interpreted as:

| — | not precluding national legislation which provides that the submission of a request for review of a decision refusing to grant a third-country national a residence permit as a victim of trafficking in human beings entails the suspension of the implementation of a previously adopted transfer decision concerning that third-country national, but as |
| --- | --- |

—

not precluding national legislation which provides that the submission of a request for review of a decision refusing to grant a third-country national a residence permit as a victim of trafficking in human beings entails the suspension of the implementation of a previously adopted transfer decision concerning that third-country national, but as

| — | precluding national legislation which provides that such a suspension entails the suspension or interruption of the period for the transfer of that third-country national. |
| --- | --- |

—

precluding national legislation which provides that such a suspension entails the suspension or interruption of the period for the transfer of that third-country national.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v E.N., S.S., J.Y.

(Case C-556/21, (1) Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Suspension of the transfer time limit on appeal))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Article 27 - Appeal against a decision to transfer an asylum seeker - Article 29 - Transfer time limit - Suspension of that time limit on appeal - Interim measure requested by the authorities)

(2023/C 179/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Defendants: E.N., S.S., J.Y.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 29(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction with Article 27(3) of that regulation,

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows a national court or tribunal hearing an appeal at second instance against a judgment annulling a transfer decision to adopt, on the application of the competent authorities, an interim measure enabling those authorities to refrain from taking a fresh decision pending the outcome of that appeal and having the object or effect of suspending the running of the transfer time limit until that outcome, provided that such a measure may be adopted only where the implementation of the transfer decision has been suspended pursuant to Article 27(3) or (4) of that regulation during the examination of the appeal at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Gmina O. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

(Case C-612/21, (1) Gmina O.)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(a) and (c) - Supply of goods and services for consideration - Article 9(1) - Meanings of ‘taxable person’ and ‘economic activity’ - Municipality which organises the installation of renewable energy on its territory for its residents who own immovable property and who have expressed the wish to be equipped with renewable energy systems - Their contribution amounting to 25 % of the subsidisable costs, without being able to exceed a maximum value agreed between the municipality and the interested property owner - Reimbursement of the municipality by a subsidy from the competent provincial authority of 75 % of the subsidisable costs - Article 13(1) - Municipalities not subject to tax for the activities or transactions carried out as public authorities)

(2023/C 179/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gmina O.

Defendant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1), Article 9(1) and Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a municipality supplies and installs, through an undertaking, renewable energy systems for its residents who own their property and who have expressed their wish to be equipped with renewable energy systems, where such an activity is not intended to obtain income on a continuing basis and gives rise, on the part of those residents, solely to a payment covering at most one quarter of the costs incurred, the balance being financed by public funds, does not constitute a supply of goods and services subject to value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v Gmina L.

(Case C-616/21, (1) Gmina L.)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Supply of services for consideration - Article 9(1) - Meanings of ‘taxable person’ and ‘economic activity’ - Municipality which arranges for asbestos removal for the benefit of its residents who own immovable property and who have expressed the wish for that - Reimbursement of the municipality by a subsidy from the competent provincial authority of 40 % to 100 % of the costs - Article 13(1) - Municipalities not subject to tax for the activities or transactions carried out as public authorities)

(2023/C 179/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Defendant: Gmina L.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1), Article 9(1) and Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as meaning that where a municipality has arranged by means of an undertaking to carry out transactions involving asbestos removal and collection of asbestos products and waste, for the benefit of its residents who own immovable property and who have expressed interest in that regard, where such an activity is not intended to obtain income on a continuing basis and does not give rise, on the part of those residents, to any payment, since those transactions are financed by public funds, does not constitute a supply of services subject to value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie — Poland) — AR and Others v PK and Others

(Case C-618/21, (1) AR and Others (Direct action against the insurer))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3 - Compulsory insurance of vehicles - Article 18 - Direct right of action - Scope - Determination of the amount of compensation - Hypothetical costs - Possibility of making the payment of compensation subject to certain conditions - Sale of the vehicle)

(2023/C 179/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AR, BF, ZN, NK Sp. z o.o. s.k., KP, RD Sp. z o.o.

Defendants: PK S.A., CR, SI S.A., MB S.A., PK S.A., SI S.A., EZ S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, read in conjunction with Article 3 of that directive,

must be interpreted as

| — | not precluding national legislation which, in the event of a direct action, by the person whose vehicle has suffered damage as a result of a road traffic accident, against the insurer of the person responsible for that accident, provides that the sole means of obtaining redress from that insurer is by way of monetary compensation, |
| --- | --- |

—

not precluding national legislation which, in the event of a direct action, by the person whose vehicle has suffered damage as a result of a road traffic accident, against the insurer of the person responsible for that accident, provides that the sole means of obtaining redress from that insurer is by way of monetary compensation,

| — | precluding rules for the calculation of that compensation and conditions relating to its payment, in so far as they would have the effect, in the context of a direct action brought under Article 18, of excluding or limiting the insurer’s obligation, under Article 3, to cover all the compensation which the person responsible for the damage must provide to the injured party in respect of the damage suffered by that party. |
| --- | --- |

—

precluding rules for the calculation of that compensation and conditions relating to its payment, in so far as they would have the effect, in the context of a direct action brought under Article 18, of excluding or limiting the insurer’s obligation, under Article 3, to cover all the compensation which the person responsible for the damage must provide to the injured party in respect of the damage suffered by that party.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings brought by M. Ya. M.

(Case C-651/21, (1) M. Ya. M. (Co-heir’s waiver of succession))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Measures relating to the law on succession - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 13 - Declaration concerning the waiver of a succession made by an heir before the court of the Member State of his or her habitual residence - Subsequent registration of that declaration, at the request of another heir, in the register of another Member State)

(2023/C 179/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M. Ya. M.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession,

must be interpreted as not precluding, after an heir has already had registered with a court of the Member State in which he or she is habitually resident his or her declaration of acceptance or of waiver of the succession of a deceased person whose habitual residence was, at the time of his or her death, in another Member State, another heir from applying for a subsequent registration of that declaration with the court of the latter Member State having jurisdiction.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Green Network SpA v SF, YB, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA)

(Case C-5/22, (1) Green Network (Order for repayment of costs))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 37 - Annex I - Duties and powers of the national regulatory authority - Consumer protection - Administrative management costs - Power of the national regulatory authority to order the repayment of sums paid by final customers pursuant to contractual terms that have been penalised by that authority)

(2023/C 179/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Green Network SpA

Defendants: SF, YB, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 37(1)(i) and (n) and Article 37(4)(d) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, and Annex I to Directive 2009/72,

must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from conferring on a national regulatory authority the power to order electricity undertakings to reimburse their final customers for the sums paid by those customers to cover ‘administrative management costs’ pursuant to a contractual term considered to be unlawful by that authority, including in cases where that order for repayment is based not on considerations of the quality of the relevant service provided by those undertakings, but on the breach of obligations relating to tariff transparency.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — IP, DD, ZI, SS, HYA

(Case C-269/22, (1) IP and Others (Establishment of the accuracy of the facts in the main proceedings — II))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - The second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to a fair trial - Right to the presumption of innocence - Account of the factual context in a request for a preliminary ruling in criminal matters - Establishment of the accuracy of certain facts in order to be able to make an admissible request for a preliminary ruling to the Court - Compliance with the procedural safeguards provided for under national law for judgments on the merits)

(2023/C 179/10)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: IP, DD, ZI, SS, HYA

Other party to the proceedings: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and of Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as not precluding a national court or tribunal in criminal matters, before any judgment on the merits, from establishing, with due regard for the procedural safeguards provided for by national law, the accuracy of certain facts in order to be able to make an admissible request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.8.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — PT v VB

(Case C-343/22, (1) PT (Order for payment under Swiss law))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Lugano II Convention - Procedure on the recognition and enforcement of judgments - Article 34(2) - Document which institutes the proceedings in the State of origin - Due notification of an order for payment followed by improper service of a request for an action for repayment under Swiss law)

(2023/C 179/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PT

Defendant: VB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(2) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, the conclusion of which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008,

must be interpreted as meaning that the statement of claim in an action for repayment under Swiss law, which was brought after a Swiss order for payment had been issued previously and which did not include an application for dismissal of the objection lodged against that order for payment, constitutes the document which instituted the proceedings, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/9

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial No 1 de Pontevedra — Spain) — Dalarjo SL and Others v Renault Trucks Sasu

(Case C-285/21, (1) Dalarjo and Others)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Actions for damages for infringements of the provisions of EU competition law - European Commission decision finding an infringement - Specialised trucks - Articulated dumper)

(2023/C 179/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial No 1 de Pontevedra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dalarjo SL and Others

Defendant: Renault Trucks Sasu

Operative part of the order

European Commission Decision C(2016) 4673 of 19 July 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39824 — Trucks) must be interpreted as meaning that specialised trucks, including articulated dumpers, fall within the products covered by the cartel found in that decision.

---

(1)  Date of filing: 28.4.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/10

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca — Spain) — AW, PN v Caixabank SA

(Case C-254/22, (1) Caixabank)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53 and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 2014/17/EU - Mortgage loan - Variable interest rate - Term providing for the application of an interest rate calculated on the basis of a mortgage loan reference index (IRPH) plus 0,50 % - Criteria for assessing whether such a term is unfair - Requirements of good faith, balance and transparency - Consequences of a finding that the term is unfair)

(2023/C 179/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AW and PN

Defendant: Caixabank SA

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The second part of the first question, the second part of the eleventh question and the fifteenth question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca (Court of First Instance No 17, Palma de Mallorca) are manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The second part of the first question, the second part of the eleventh question and the fifteenth question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca (Court of First Instance No 17, Palma de Mallorca) are manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

  must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation and case-law which exempt the seller or supplier from providing to the consumer, at the time of conclusion of a mortgage loan agreement, information related to the previous fluctuations of the reference index over at least the previous two years by means of a comparison with at least one different index such as the Euribor index, provided that that national legislation and case-law enable the court to satisfy itself that the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect was able, in the light of the publicly available and accessible information and, where appropriate, the information provided by the seller or supplier, to understand the specific functioning of the method used to calculate the interest rate and thus evaluate, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the potentially significant economic consequences of a term setting a variable interest rate on his or her financial obligations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

| 3. | Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Directive 93/13

  must be interpreted as precluding national legislation and case-law which consider an absence of good faith on the part of the seller or supplier to be a necessary precondition for any review of the content of a non-transparent term in a consumer contract. It is for the national court to determine whether, in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the main proceedings, the seller or supplier must be regarded as having acted in good faith by selecting an index provided for by law, and whether the term incorporating such an index is such as to create a significant imbalance, to the detriment of the consumer, between the rights and obligations of the parties arising from the contract. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Directive 93/13

| 4. | Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13

  must be interpreted as not precluding the national court, where an unfair term setting the variable interest rate of a loan by linking it to a reference index is found to be null and void, from replacing that index with a statutory index applicable in the absence of an agreement to the contrary between the parties to the contract, provided that the mortgage loan agreement in question is not capable of continuing in existence if the unfair term is removed and the annulment of that agreement in its entirety would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13

---

(1)  Date lodged: 12.4.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/11

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Eurowings GmbH v Flightright GmbH

(Case C-607/22, (1) Eurowings (Non-existent flight))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 2 - Concept of ‘operating air carrier’ - Flight booked through a tour operator - Allegedly non-existent flight)

(2023/C 179/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Eurowings GmbH

Respondent: Flightright GmbH

Operative part of the order

Article 2(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91,

must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier cannot be classified as an ‘operating air carrier’, within the meaning of that provision, where a passenger has concluded a contract with a tour operator for a particular flight, with a flight number and a date, which was supposed to be operated by that air carrier, without the air carrier ever having scheduled a flight with that flight number for that date, but may be regarded as an ‘operating air carrier’, within the meaning of that provision, where it has made an offer which, as the case may be, has been the subject of subsequent amendments on its part.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 20.9.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/11

---

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KO against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-119/22 AJ, KO v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-485/22 P)

(2023/C 179/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KO (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KO should bear her own costs.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/12

---

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KM against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-120/22 AJ, KM v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-486/22 P)

(2023/C 179/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KM (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KM should bear his own costs.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/12

---

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KR against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-121/22 AJ, KR v Council of the European Union, European Commission and European External Action Service (EEAS)

(Case C-487/22 P)

(2023/C 179/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KR (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS)

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KR should bear her own costs.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/12

---

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KQ against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-122/22 AJ, KQ v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-488/22 P)

(2023/C 179/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KQ (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KQ should bear her own costs.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/13

---

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by VZ against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-127/22 AJ, VZ v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-489/22 P)

(2023/C 179/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: VZ (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that VZ should bear her own costs.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/13

---

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KN against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-139/22 AJ, KN v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-490/22 P)

(2023/C 179/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KN (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KN should bear her own costs.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/13

---

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KP against the order of the President of the General Court delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-140/22 AJ, KP v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-491/22 P)

(2023/C 179/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KP (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KP should bear her own costs.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 29 December 2022 — Biohemp Concept Srl v Direcția pentru Agricultură Județeană Alba

(Case C-793/22, Biohemp Concept)

(2023/C 179/22)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant and applicant at first instance: Biohemp Concept Srl

Respondent and defendant at first instance: Direcția pentru Agricultură Județeană Alba

Question referred

Must Regulations Nos 1307/2013 (1) and 1308/2013 (2) and Articles 35, 36 and 38 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation in so far as it prohibits the cultivation of hemp (Cannabis sativa) in hydroponic systems in indoor environments prepared for that purpose?

---

(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 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2023 — M-GbR v Finanzamt O

(Case C-68/23, Finanzamt O)

(2023/C 179/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: M-GbR

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Finanzamt O

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a single-purpose voucher exist within the meaning of Article 30a(2) of the VAT Directive (1) where:






  — | the place of supply of the services to which the voucher relates is established in known in so far as those services are intended to be supplied to final consumers within the territory of a Member State, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Does a single-purpose voucher exist within the meaning of Article 30a(2) of the VAT Directive (1) where:

—

the place of supply of the services to which the voucher relates is established in known in so far as those services are intended to be supplied to final consumers within the territory of a Member State,

| — | but the fiction of the first subparagraph of Article 30b(1) first sentence of the VAT Directive, according to which also the transfer of the voucher between taxable persons is considered as providing the service to which the voucher relates, gives rise to a service in the territory of another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

—

but the fiction of the first subparagraph of Article 30b(1) first sentence of the VAT Directive, according to which also the transfer of the voucher between taxable persons is considered as providing the service to which the voucher relates, gives rise to a service in the territory of another Member State?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative (and hence a multi-purpose voucher exists in the present case): Does subparagraph 1 of Article 30b(2) of the VAT Directive, according to which the actual provision of the services in return for a multi-purpose voucher accepted as consideration or part consideration by the supplier is subject to VAT pursuant to Article 2 of the VAT Directive, whereas each preceding transfer of that multi-purpose voucher is not subject to VAT, preclude a differently substantiated tax obligation (judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 3 May 2012, Lebara, C-520/10, EU:C:2012:264)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative (and hence a multi-purpose voucher exists in the present case): Does subparagraph 1 of Article 30b(2) of the VAT Directive, according to which the actual provision of the services in return for a multi-purpose voucher accepted as consideration or part consideration by the supplier is subject to VAT pursuant to Article 2 of the VAT Directive, whereas each preceding transfer of that multi-purpose voucher is not subject to VAT, preclude a differently substantiated tax obligation (judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 3 May 2012, Lebara, C-520/10, EU:C:2012:264)?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), in the version of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the treatment of vouchers (OJ 2016 L 177, p. 9).

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2023 — MA v FCA Italy SpA and FPT Industrial SpA

(Case C-81/23, FCA Italy and FPT Industrial)

(2023/C 179/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: MA

Respondents in the appeal on a point of law: FCA Italy SpA, FPT Industrial SpA

Question referred

Must point 2 of Article 7 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 (‘Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012’) be interpreted as meaning that, in an action for tortious liability against the developer of a diesel engine with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (2) on type approval, the place where the harmful event occurred in a case where the vehicle was bought by the applicant domiciled in Member State B (in this case: Austria) from a third party established in Member State C (in this case: Germany) is

| a) | the place where the contract was concluded; |
| --- | --- |

a)

the place where the contract was concluded;

| b) | the place where the vehicle was delivered, or |
| --- | --- |

b)

the place where the vehicle was delivered, or

| c) | the place where the physical defect constituting the damage occurred and, therefore, the place where the vehicle is normally used? |
| --- | --- |

c)

the place where the physical defect constituting the damage occurred and, therefore, the place where the vehicle is normally used?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany) lodged on 15 February 2023 — Landkreis Jerichower Land v A.

(Case C-85/23, Landkreis Jerichower Land)

(2023/C 179/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Landkreis Jerichower Land

Respondent: A.

Question referred

Must Article 24(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 (1) of 19 October 2009, as last amended by Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1009, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘storage’ covers an interruption of transport operations during which containers of Category 3 animal by-products are transferred to another vehicle and kept in that vehicle for a number of hours (up to eight) before being transported onwards to a processing plant, without the material being treated or transferred to other containers?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 laying down rules on the making available on the market of EU fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 (OJ 2019 L 170, p. 1).

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/16

---

Appeal brought on 8 March 2023 by Hecht Pharma GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 January 2023 in Case T-346/21, Hecht Pharma GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-142/23 P)

(2023/C 179/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Hecht Pharma GmbH (represented by: C. Sachs, Rechtsanwältin, and J. Sachs, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Gufic BioSciences Ltd.

Form of order sought

Should the appeal be allowed to proceed, the appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 January 2023, Hecht Pharma GmbH v EUIPO — Gufic BioSciences (Gufic), T-346/21, EU:T:2023:2, due to a distortion of the facts; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 January 2023, Hecht Pharma GmbH v EUIPO — Gufic BioSciences (Gufic), T-346/21, EU:T:2023:2, due to a distortion of the facts;

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 3 June 2021 in Case R 2738/2019-2 and declare EU trade mark No 8 613 044 ‘Gufic’ to be revoked also in respect of the goods ‘medicines’ in Class 5; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 3 June 2021 in Case R 2738/2019-2 and declare EU trade mark No 8 613 044 ‘Gufic’ to be revoked also in respect of the goods ‘medicines’ in Class 5;

| — | refrain from ruling on the action without a hearing; |
| --- | --- |

—

refrain from ruling on the action without a hearing;

| — | order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the intervener before the General Court, Gufic BioSciences, to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the previous sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the intervener before the General Court, Gufic BioSciences, to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the previous sets of proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant submits that the appeal relates to procedural errors and matters which, with respect to the interpretation of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, (1) taking into account recital 28 thereof and in relation to the goods ‘medicines’ in Class 5, go beyond the decision at issue and raise issues of principle.

It maintains that, according to the literal meaning of the term ‘medicine’, the public expects a product capable of preventing, alleviating and curing a human disease.

According to the appellant, the General Court did not base its assessment on the significance of the particular ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’ on the packaging, but merely considered the term ‘Medicine’ to mean ‘medicinal product’ and therefore failed to take into account all the facts and circumstances.

The General Court concluded that the product is a medicinal product by presentation on the basis of the particulars on the packaging (Ayurvedic Medicine and its indications). However, the appellant argues that it would not in that case be a medicinal product according to the literal meaning, but is merely presented as such. The Court of Justice has held that medicinal products by presentation do not have the effect which consumers are entitled to expect. On the basis of their lack of effect, the Court’s intention is to protect consumers from medicinal products by presentation (judgment of 15 January 2009, Hecht-Pharma, C-140/07, EU:C:2009:5, paragraph 25; judgment of 15 November 2007, Commission v Germany, C-319/05, EU:C:2007:678, paragraph 61). The appellant submits that use which preserves rights is therefore excluded in the case of a medicinal product by presentation since, in accordance with Article 87 of Directive 2001/83/EC, (2) that product may not be advertised.

The appellant maintains that, for any category of goods, a product which only appears to belong to that category of goods may not, in principle, give rise to use which preserves rights. If it is merely presented as such by means of particulars on the packaging, while the product itself does not correspond to the characteristics of the category of goods, it fails to comply with the requirements under recital 28 and Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.

According to the appellant, when assessing whether use of the trade mark is genuine, regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether the commercial use of the mark is real, particularly the practices regarded as warranted in the relevant economic sector as a means of maintaining or creating market shares for the medicinal products protected by the mark, the nature of those goods or services, the characteristics of the market and the scale and frequency of use of the mark.

Furthermore, it submits that genuine use of a trade mark cannot be proved by means of probabilities or presumptions, but must be demonstrated by solid and objective evidence of effective and sufficient use of the trade mark on the market concerned.

Under recital 28 and Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, the use of general terms includes only goods clearly covered by the literal meaning of the general term.

According to the appellant, what is indicated on the packaging is not the term ‘medicinal product’, but rather ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’. The documents submitted by the intervener designated the goods as ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’ and not as medicines. The appellant maintains that the General Court simply interpreted the term ‘Medicine’ as meaning ‘medicinal product’, thereby making a mere presumption, but did not interpret the actual particular ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’.

The appellant asserts that it not only referred to the laws in India, the country of origin of the product, but also provided evidence, obtained through questioning of an instructed representative of the Indian federal authority, that, even in India, a distinction is made between medicinal products and ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’.

The General Court stated that the relevant judicial and administrative decisions designated the product in question as a ‘non-harmful medicine’. It failed to take into account documents submitted by the appellant according to which the product was denied authorisation in Germany on account of significant toxicological effects and according to which subsequent judicial proceedings had confirmed that decision as final.

In Germany, an opinion of an administrative official cannot overturn a final judgment. However, the General Court took the opposite view.

The General Court stated that a medical prescription is evidence of a medicine, which the appellant also did not dispute. The appellant submits that this is untrue. At the hearing, the appellant’s representative expressly stated that, due to therapeutic freedom in Germany, doctors are even permitted to prescribe food. The General Court presumed that consumers would perceive the product as a medicinal product on account of its presentation. It did not take into account the knowledge of specialised circles which would very likely be aware that ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’ products are ineffective and that the product in question was denied authorisation.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (codification) (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

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

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 10 March 2023 — Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE v Erg Eolica Ginestra Srl and Others

(Case C-148/23, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici)

(2023/C 179/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Respondents: Erg Eolica Ginestra Srl, Erg Eolica Ginestra Srl, Erg Eolica Campania SpA, Erg Eolica Fossa del Lupo Srl, Erg Eolica Amaroni Srl, Erg Eolica Adriatica Srl, Erg Eolica San Vincenzo Srl, Erg Eolica San Circeo Srl, Erg Eolica Faeto Srl, Green Vicari Srl, Erg Wind Energy Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 3 Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 6 Srl, Erg Wind 4 Srl, Erg Wind 6 Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 5 Srl, Erg Wind 2000 Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 2 Srl, Erg Wind Sardegna Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 4 Srl, Erg Hydro Srl, Erg Power Generation SpA, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Question referred

Must Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, (1) in particular recitals 8, 14, 25 and Articles 1 and 3, and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, be interpreted as precluding a rule of national law, such as that resulting from the provisions of decreto legislativo 3 marzo 2011, n. 28 (Legislative Decree No 28 of 3 March 2011) and decreto ministeriale 6 luglio 2012 (Ministerial Decree of 6 July 2012) — as interpreted by the settled case-law of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) — which makes the granting of incentives subject to the conclusion of private-law contracts between GSE and the entity responsible for the plant, including plants for the production of electricity powered by renewable sources which began operating before 31 December 2012?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 20 March 2023 — UP CAFFE d.o.o. v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske

(Case C-171/23, UP CAFFE)

(2023/C 179/28)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Upravni sud u Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UP CAFFE d.o.o.

Defendant: Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske

Question referred

Does EU law impose an obligation on the national authorities and courts to determine liability for value added tax (and not to refuse a claim for a refund) where the objective facts of the case indicate that VAT fraud has been committed through the creation of a new company, that is to say, by interrupting the continuity of the previous company’s taxable activity, in the case where the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that it was participating in such an activity, and where, at the time when the chargeable event occurred, national law did not provide for such a determination of liability?

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/19

---

Action brought on 23 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-186/23)

(2023/C 179/29)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Gr. Koleva and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2019/790 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC lays down rules which aim to harmonise further Union law applicable to copyright and related rights in the framework of the internal market, taking into account, in particular, digital and cross-border uses of protected content. It also lays down rules on exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights, on the facilitation of licences, as well as rules which aim to ensure a well-functioning marketplace for the exploitation of works and other subject matter. Article 29 of that directive stipulates 7 June 2021 as the time limit for the Member States to transpose the directive. Paragraph 2 of that article states that ‘Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive’.

On 23 July 2022, the Commission sent the Republic of Bulgaria a letter of formal notice and, on 19 May 2022, a reasoned opinion. Despite this, the measures transposing the directive were still not adopted or in any event were not notified to the Commission.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that by failing to adopt the necessary legislative, regulatory or administrative measures, necessary to comply with Directive (ЕU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC (‘the directive’) and by failing to notify them to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29 of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that by failing to adopt the necessary legislative, regulatory or administrative measures, necessary to comply with Directive (ЕU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC (‘the directive’) and by failing to notify them to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29 of the directive;

| 2. | order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the Commission a lump sum payment corresponding to the higher of the following two amounts: (i) a daily sum of EUR 1 800, multiplied by the number of days between the day following the expiry of the time limit for transposition, laid down in the directive, and the day on which the infringement was resolved, or, if the infringement has not been resolved, the day on which the ruling is handed down in the present proceedings; (ii) a minimum lump sum payment of EUR 504 000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the Commission a lump sum payment corresponding to the higher of the following two amounts: (i) a daily sum of EUR 1 800, multiplied by the number of days between the day following the expiry of the time limit for transposition, laid down in the directive, and the day on which the infringement was resolved, or, if the infringement has not been resolved, the day on which the ruling is handed down in the present proceedings; (ii) a minimum lump sum payment of EUR 504 000;

| 3. | in the event that the failure to fulfil the obligations referred to in point 1 continues up to the date of delivery of the ruling in the present proceedings, order the Republic of Bulgaria to make a periodic penalty payment to the Commission in the amount of EUR 10 800 per day for each day of delay from the date of the ruling in the present proceedings until that Member State has fulfilled its obligations in accordance with the directive; |
| --- | --- |

3.

in the event that the failure to fulfil the obligations referred to in point 1 continues up to the date of delivery of the ruling in the present proceedings, order the Republic of Bulgaria to make a periodic penalty payment to the Commission in the amount of EUR 10 800 per day for each day of delay from the date of the ruling in the present proceedings until that Member State has fulfilled its obligations in accordance with the directive;

| 4. | order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ 2019 L 130, p. 92.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/20

---

Action brought on 28 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-201/23)

(2023/C 179/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda and B. Sasinowska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, (1) and by failing to inform the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, (1) and by failing to inform the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29 of that directive;

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay to the Commission a lump sum corresponding to the higher of the following two amounts: (i) a daily amount of EUR 13 700 multiplied by the number of days which elapsed from the day following the expiry of the time limit for transposition laid down in the directive in question until the day on which the failure to fulfil obligations is remedied or, if the failure to fulfil obligations is not remedied, until the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case; (ii) a minimum lump sum of EUR 3 836 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay to the Commission a lump sum corresponding to the higher of the following two amounts: (i) a daily amount of EUR 13 700 multiplied by the number of days which elapsed from the day following the expiry of the time limit for transposition laid down in the directive in question until the day on which the failure to fulfil obligations is remedied or, if the failure to fulfil obligations is not remedied, until the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case; (ii) a minimum lump sum of EUR 3 836 000;

| — | if the failure established in the first indent continues until the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case, order the Republic of Poland to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 82 200 for each day of delay from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the date on which the Republic of Poland fulfils its obligations under the directive; and |
| --- | --- |

—

if the failure established in the first indent continues until the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case, order the Republic of Poland to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 82 200 for each day of delay from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the date on which the Republic of Poland fulfils its obligations under the directive; and

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

—

order Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The deadline for the transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council expired on 7 June 2021.

Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council lays down rules aimed at further harmonising Union law applicable to copyright and related rights in the internal market, with a particular focus on digital and cross-border uses of protected content. The Directive also lays down rules on exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights, the facilitation of licensing, as well as rules aimed at ensuring the proper functioning of the market for the exploitation of works and other protected subject matter.

According to Article 29(1) of the directive: ‘Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 7 June 2021. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof. When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States’.

The Commission issued a letter of formal notice to the Republic of Poland on 23 July 2021. On 19 May 2022, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Republic of Poland. Despite this, the transposing measures have not yet been adopted by the Republic of Poland or notified to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2019 L 130, p. 92.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/21

---

Action brought on 31 March 2023 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-211/23)

(2023/C 179/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| (1) | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, (1) and by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29(1) and (2) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, (1) and by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29(1) and (2) of that directive;

| (2) | order the Portuguese Republic to make a lump sum payment to the Commission, corresponding to the higher of the following two amounts: (i) a daily amount of EUR 4 600 multiplied by the number of days between the day following the expiry of the period for transposition laid down by Directive 2019/790 and the date on which the infringement is brought to an end or, should that infringement not be brought to an end, the date of delivery of the judgment; or (ii) a minimum lump sum payment of EUR 1 288 000; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

order the Portuguese Republic to make a lump sum payment to the Commission, corresponding to the higher of the following two amounts: (i) a daily amount of EUR 4 600 multiplied by the number of days between the day following the expiry of the period for transposition laid down by Directive 2019/790 and the date on which the infringement is brought to an end or, should that infringement not be brought to an end, the date of delivery of the judgment; or (ii) a minimum lump sum payment of EUR 1 288 000;

| (3) | if, on the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, the infringement declared pursuant to point 1 persists, order the Portuguese Republic to pay the Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 27 600 per day from the date of the judgment in the present proceedings up until the date on which that Member State fulfils its obligations under Directive 2019/790; and |
| --- | --- |

(3)

if, on the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, the infringement declared pursuant to point 1 persists, order the Portuguese Republic to pay the Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 27 600 per day from the date of the judgment in the present proceedings up until the date on which that Member State fulfils its obligations under Directive 2019/790; and

| (4) | order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, updates the rules relating to copyright, so as to take into account digital technologies, which have transformed the way in which creative content is produced, distributed and accessed. Article 29(1) of that directive sets 7 June 2021 as the time limit for transposition by the Member States. Under Article 29(2), ‘Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive’.

On 23 June 2021, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Portuguese Republic. On 19 May 2022, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to that Member State. Nonetheless, measures transposing that directive in full have yet to be adopted or, in any event, communicated to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2019 L 130, p. 92.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/22

---

Action brought on 31 March 2023 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-214/23)

(2023/C 179/32)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda and C. Vang, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

| — | declare that the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, (1) by failing to adopt, by 7 June 2021 at the latest, all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive, or in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of those laws, regulations and administrative provisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, (1) by failing to adopt, by 7 June 2021 at the latest, all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive, or in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of those laws, regulations and administrative provisions;

| — | order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the Commission a lump sum of EUR 3 642 per day from the day after the deadline for implementation of the directive, namely 8 June 2021, and until the day that the failure to fulfil obligations comes to an end, or, failing compliance, the date of the delivery of the judgment in the present case, and not less than EUR 1 456 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the Commission a lump sum of EUR 3 642 per day from the day after the deadline for implementation of the directive, namely 8 June 2021, and until the day that the failure to fulfil obligations comes to an end, or, failing compliance, the date of the delivery of the judgment in the present case, and not less than EUR 1 456 000;

| — | if the failure to fulfil obligations referred to in paragraph 1 is established by the Court and continues after the judgment is delivered in the present case, order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the Commission a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 21 840 for each day of delay from the date of delivery of the judgment until the date the Kingdom of Denmark fulfils its obligations under the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

if the failure to fulfil obligations referred to in paragraph 1 is established by the Court and continues after the judgment is delivered in the present case, order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the Commission a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 21 840 for each day of delay from the date of delivery of the judgment until the date the Kingdom of Denmark fulfils its obligations under the Directive;

| — | order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC updates the copyright rules in order to take account of the digital technologies that have transformed the way creative content is produced, distributed and accessed. It is apparent from Article 29(1) of the directive, that that directive is to be transposed into national law by 7 June 2021, and that the Member States are immediately to inform the Commission thereof.

The Kingdom of Denmark has not fulfilled that obligation. On 24 June 2021 the Kingdom of Denmark communicated to the Commission its transposition of Articles 15 and 17 of the Directive, but not its transposition of the rest of the directive. Therefore, on 23 July 2021, the Commission sent Denmark a letter of formal notice. On 24 September 2021, the Danish Government replied to the letter of formal notice and acknowledged that the directive had not been fully transposed into Danish law. On 19 May 2022, the Commission sent Denmark a reasoned opinion, to which the Danish Government replied on 30 June 2022. In the reply, the Danish Government indicated that the directive still had not been transposed in full into Danish law. The Danish Government last indicated in March 2023 that the Kingdom of Denmark still had not adopted all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive.

The directive was adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and the case therefore comes within the scope of Article 260(3) TFEU. Denmark has not fulfilled the obligation set out in Article 29 of the directive to bring into force all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 7 June 2021 and to immediately inform the Commission thereof. The conditions for the application of Article 260(3) TFEU are therefore satisfied.

Against that background, the Commission calls on the Court to order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay a lump sum and penalty payments pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, and to set those sanctions in accordance with the Commission’s communication on economic sanctions in infringement procedures.

---

(1)  OJ 2019 L 130, p. 92.

---

General Court

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission

(Case T-500/17 RENV) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (excluding cast iron) or steel (excluding stainless steel), of circular cross-section and of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, originating in China - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Causal link - Article 3(6) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Manifest error of assessment)

(2023/C 179/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co. Ltd (Huangshi, China) (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA (Roman, Romania), Válcovny trub Chomutov a.s. (Chomutov, Czech Republic), Vallourec Deutschland GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/804 of 11 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2017 L 121, p. 3), in so far as it concerns it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co. Ltd to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Válcovny trub Chomutov a.s. and Vallourec Deutschland GmbH in the proceedings before the Court of Justice in Case C-891/19 P and in the proceedings before the General Court in Cases T-500/17 and T-500/17 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co. Ltd to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Válcovny trub Chomutov a.s. and Vallourec Deutschland GmbH in the proceedings before the Court of Justice in Case C-891/19 P and in the proceedings before the General Court in Cases T-500/17 and T-500/17 RENV.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Universität Bremen v REA

(Case T-660/19 RENV) (1)

(Research and technological development - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020’ - Call for proposals H2020-SC6-Governance-2019 - REA decision rejecting a proposal - Error of fact - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment)

(2023/C 179/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Universität Bremen (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: C. Schmid, Professor)

Defendant: European Research Executive Agency (represented by: V. Canetti and S. Payan-Lagrou, acting as Agents, and C. Wagner and R. van der Hout, lawyers)

Re:

By its application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of decision Ares(2019) 4590599 of the European Research Executive Agency (REA) of 16 July 2019 rejecting the proposal that it submitted in relation to call for proposals H2020-SC6-Governance-2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Universität Bremen to pay the costs relating to the proceedings brought before the General Court and the European Research Executive Agency (REA) to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Universität Bremen to pay the costs relating to the proceedings brought before the General Court and the European Research Executive Agency (REA) to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Tazzetti v Commission

(Joined Cases T-825/19 and T-826/19) (1)

(Environment - Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 - Fluorinated greenhouse gases - Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market - Undertakings with the same beneficial owner - Single producer or importer - Act having an adverse effect - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Request to modify the application - Inadmissibility - Plea of illegality - Interpretation of an implementing regulation consistent with the basic regulation - Implementing power of the Commission)

(2023/C 179/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant in Case T-825/19: Tazzetti SpA (Volpiano, Italy) (represented by: M. Condinanzi, E. Ferrero and C. Vivani, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-826/19: Tazzetti SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Condinanzi, E. Ferrero and C. Vivani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their actions brought on 4 December 2019 under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment, first, of decisions contained in three letters of 27 and 30 September 2019 and in two emails of 6 and 20 November 2019 from the European Commission, made pursuant to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/661 of 25 April 2019 ensuring the smooth functioning of the electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market (OJ 2019 L 112, p. 11), and, secondly, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1604 of 23 October 2020 determining, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on fluorinated greenhouse gases, reference values for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2023 for each producer or importer that has lawfully placed hydrofluorocarbons on the market in the Union from 1 January 2015, as reported under that Regulation (OJ 2020 L 364, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-825/19 and T-826/19 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-825/19 and T-826/19 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Annuls the decisions contained in the second letter sent by the European Commission on 27 September 2019, in the letter of 30 September 2019 of the Commission, and in the email of 20 November 2019 of the Commission addressed to Tazzetti SpA and Tazzetti SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decisions contained in the second letter sent by the European Commission on 27 September 2019, in the letter of 30 September 2019 of the Commission, and in the email of 20 November 2019 of the Commission addressed to Tazzetti SpA and Tazzetti SA;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tazzetti SpA and Tazzetti SA. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tazzetti SpA and Tazzetti SA.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Nouryon Industrial Chemicals and Others v Commission

(Case T-868/19) (1)

(REACH - Evaluation of registration dossiers and compliance check of information provided by registrants - Request for further studies for the purposes of the registration dossier for dimethyl ether - Pre-natal developmental toxicity study - Extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study - Dose-range finding study - Article 51(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Animal testing - Article 25 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2023/C 179/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nouryon Industrial Chemicals BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Knoell NL BV (Maarssen, Netherlands), Grillo-Werke AG (Duisburg, Germany), PCC Trade & Services GmbH (Duisburg) (represented by: R. Cana, Z. Romata and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: M. Søndahl Wolff, acting as Agent), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, A. Hanje and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Runeskjöld, C. Meyer-Seitz, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Shev, H. Eklinder, R. Shahsavan Eriksson and O. Simonsson, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere, S. Mahoney and N. Herbatschek, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2019) 7336 final of 16 October 2019 on the compliance check of a registration of dimethyl ether, adopted on referral by the European Chemicals Agency, on the basis of Article 51(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Satabank v ECB

(Case T-72/20) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - Supervised entity - Composite administrative procedure - Denial of access to the file - Decision 2004/258/EC - Access to ECB documents)

(2023/C 179/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Satabank plc (St Julian’s, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: G. Buono, A. Lefterov and E. Koupepidou, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 26 November 2019 by which it rejected its request for access to the file concerning it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 26 November 2019 by which it rejected Satabank plc’s request for access to the file concerning it; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 26 November 2019 by which it rejected Satabank plc’s request for access to the file concerning it;

| 2. | Orders the ECB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Wizz Air Hungary v Commission (Blue Air; COVID-19 and rescue aid)

(Case T-142/21) (1)

(State aid - Romanian air transport market - Aid granted by Romania to Blue Air in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic - Blue Air rescue aid - Loan guaranteed by the Romanian State - Decision not to raise any objections - Action for annulment - Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence - Article 107(2)(b) TFEU - Assessment of the damage - Causal link - Beneficiary’s pre-existing difficulties - Taking avoidable costs into account - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Contribution of the aid to an objective of common interest - ‘One time, last time’ condition for rescue aid - Principle of non-discrimination - Freedom to provide services - Freedom of establishment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 179/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, V. Bottka and I. Barcew, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 5830 final of 20 August 2020 on State Aid SA.57026 (2020/N) — Romania — COVID-19: Aid to Blue Air.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Plusmusic v EUIPO — Groupe Canal + (+music)

(Case T-344/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark +music - Earlier national figurative mark + - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use)

(2023/C 179/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Plusmusic AG (Dietikon, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Maier and A. Spieß, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Groupe Canal + (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: M. Georges-Picot and C. Cuny, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment in part of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 April 2021 (Case R 1236/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 April 2021 (Case R 1236/2020-5) in so far as it found that there was a likelihood of confusion in respect of the goods and services in Classes 11, 25, 35, 37 and 42; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 April 2021 (Case R 1236/2020-5) in so far as it found that there was a likelihood of confusion in respect of the goods and services in Classes 11, 25, 35, 37 and 42;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Plusmusic AG, EUIPO and Groupe Canal + to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Plusmusic AG, EUIPO and Groupe Canal + to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Coinbase v EUIPO — bitFlyer (coinbase)

(Case T-366/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark coinbase - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 179/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Coinbase, Inc. (Oakland, California, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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: bitFlyer Inc. (Tokyo, Japan)

Re:

By its 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 29 April 2021 (Case R 1751/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 April 2021 (Case R 1751/2020-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 April 2021 (Case R 1751/2020-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — ZR v EUIPO

(Case T-400/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Vacancy notice - Application for interinstitutional transfer - First paragraph of Article 8 of the Staff Regulations - Transfer refusal - Priority order - Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Duty of care - Corrigendum)

(2023/C 179/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 September 2020 rejecting her application for a transfer to EUIPO.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ZR to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ZR to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-505/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 June 2021 (Case R 1003/2018-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 401, 4.10.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-535/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 June 2021 (Case R 1004/2018-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-545/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 June 2021 (Case R 1011/2018-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-555/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 June 2021 (Case R 1007/2018-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-575/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van den Bergh, A. van Hoek and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Tinnus Enterprises LLC, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2021 (Case R 1006/2018-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-576/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van den Bergh, A. van Hoek and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Tinnus Enterprises LLC, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2021 (Case R 1005/2018-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-577/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van den Bergh, A. van Hoek and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Tinnus Enterprises LLC, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2021 (Case R 1010/2018-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-578/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van den Bergh, A. van Hoek and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Tinnus Enterprises LLC, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2021 (Case R 1009/2018-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-588/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a part of the fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van den Bergh, A. van Hoek and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Tinnus Enterprises LLC, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 July 2021 (Case R 1008/2018-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — B&Bartoni v EUIPO — Hypertherm (Electrode to insert into a torch)

(Case T-617/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an electrode to insert into a torch - Ground for invalidity - Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Component part of a complex product)

(2023/C 179/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: B&Bartoni spol. s r.o. (Dolní Cetno, Czech Republic) (represented by: E. Lachmannová, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hypertherm, Inc. (Hanover, New Hampshire, United States) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 July 2021 (Case R 2843/2019-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders B&Bartoni spol. s r.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders B&Bartoni spol. s r.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Casa International v EUIPO — Interstyle (casa)

(Case T-650/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark casa - Absolute ground for invalidity - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2023/C 179/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Casa International (Olen, Belgium) (represented by: F. Cornette and T. Poels-Ryckeboer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Interstyle BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Verbeek, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 July 2021 (Case R 1280/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 July 2021 (Case R 1280/2020-2) in so far as it dismissed the appeal filed by Casa International as regards the following goods in Class 16: ‘Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists’ materials; brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); [instructional and teaching materials (except apparatus)]; plastic materials for packing (not included in other classes); printing types; [printing blocks]’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 July 2021 (Case R 1280/2020-2) in so far as it dismissed the appeal filed by Casa International as regards the following goods in Class 16: ‘Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists’ materials; brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); [instructional and teaching materials (except apparatus)]; plastic materials for packing (not included in other classes); printing types; [printing blocks]’;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BIO-BEAUTÉ)

(Case T-750/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark BIO-BEAUTÉ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 52(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75, first sentence of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2023/C 179/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Beauty Biosciences LLC (Dallas, Texas, United States) (represented by: D. Mărginean, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and R. Raponi, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société de Recherche Cosmétique SARL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and the alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 September 2021 (Joined Cases R 1871/2020-4 and R 1891/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 September 2021 (Joined Cases R 1871/2020-4 and R 1891/2020-4) in so far as it concerns ‘perfumes, toilet water, eau de Cologne; essential oils; incense, perfume water’ and ‘dentifrices’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 September 2021 (Joined Cases R 1871/2020-4 and R 1891/2020-4) in so far as it concerns ‘perfumes, toilet water, eau de Cologne; essential oils; incense, perfume water’ and ‘dentifrices’;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Puma v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (Representation of a band with an acute angle)

(Case T-5/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a band with an acute angle - Earlier EU and national figurative marks representing a band - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Legal certainty - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration)

(2023/C 179/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Brooks Sports, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: C. Spintig and S. Pietzcker, lawyers)

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 29 October 2021 (Case R 910/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far it seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 October 2021 (Case R 910/2021-4) to the extent that it dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision of 30 March 2021 in respect of goods other than ‘footwear’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far it seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 October 2021 (Case R 910/2021-4) to the extent that it dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision of 30 March 2021 in respect of goods other than ‘footwear’;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Puma SE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Puma SE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — NY v Commission

(Case T-21/22) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Commission’s internal security investigation - Alleged acts of violence by the Commission’s security personnel - Prohibition of entry into buildings - Confiscation of service pass - Claim for compensation - Dismissal of the claim - Principle of good administration - Right to integrity and dignity - Error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

(2023/C 179/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Lilamand and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 14 April 2021 by which the latter dismissed his claim for compensation and, where appropriate, of the decision of 4 October 2021 by which the latter rejected his complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — CIMV v Commission

(Case T-26/22) (1)

(Research and technological development - Grant agreement concluded in the context of the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation - Recovery of a debt - Repayment by instalments - Substantive accuracy of the facts - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Right to be heard - Proportionality)

(2023/C 179/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie industrielle de la matière végétale (CIMV) (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret, R. Rard and P. Renié, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Ilkova and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2021) 7932 final of 28 October 2021 concerning the recovery of an amount in the sum of EUR 5 888 214,59 plus late payment interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Compagnie industrielle de la matière végétale (CIMV) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Compagnie industrielle de la matière végétale (CIMV) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 7.3.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Colombani v EEAS

(Case T-113/22) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Refusal of the request - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Rights of the defence - Error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Amicable settlement - Lack of consent - Retroactive promotion decision)

(2023/C 179/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Marc Colombani (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: R. Spáč and A. Ireland, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and L. Lence de Frutos, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of 15 June 2021 by which the European External Action Service (EEAS) refused, in part, his request for assistance submitted on 18 February 2021 under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and in accordance with the amicable settlement reached between the parties on 9 February 2021 and the alleged implied decision to promote him to grade AD 14 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2018, as was brought to his attention by his payslip for the month of May 2021, and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage he claims to have suffered as a result of EEAS’s conduct.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Jean-Marc Colombani to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Jean-Marc Colombani to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 19.4.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Perfetti Van Melle v EUIPO (Representation of a cylindrical container with a wavy outline)

(Case T-199/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a cylindrical container with a wavy outline - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 179/58)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle SpA (Lainate, Italy) (represented by: P. Testa and C. Pappalardo, lawyers)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 February 2022 (Case R 1530/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Perfetti Van Melle SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Perfetti Van Melle SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Fun Factory v EUIPO — I Love You (love you so much)

(Case T-306/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark love you so much - Earlier EU figurative mark I LOVE YOU SINCE FOREVER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 179/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fun Factory GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: K.-D. Franzen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: I Love You, Inc. (Lewes, Delaware, United States)

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 22 March 2022 (Case R 1464/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — celotec v EUIPO — Decotec Printing (DECOTEC)

(Case T-308/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark DECOTEC - Absolute ground for invalidity - Lack of descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 179/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: celotec GmbH & Co. KG (Sendenhorst, Germany) (represented by: E. Warnke and J. Römelt, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Decotec Printing, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2022 (Case R 1025/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders celotec GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders celotec GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 266, 11.7.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — adp Merkur v EUIPO — psmtec (SEVEN SEVEN 7)

(Case T-408/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark SEVEN SEVEN 7 - Earlier EU word mark Seven - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No genuine use - Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 179/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: adp Merkur GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: psmtec GmbH (Illertissen, Germany)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 April 2022 (Case R 1498/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 22.8.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Machková v EUIPO — Aceites Almenara (ALMARA SOAP)

(Case T-436/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ALMARA SOAP - Earlier EU word mark ALMENARA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 179/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Veronika Machková (Šestajovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Balcar, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Aceites Almenara, SL (Puebla de Almenara, Spain)

Re:

By her action based on 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 25 April 2022 (Case R 1613/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Veronika Machková and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Veronika Machková and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/43

---

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Mariani v Parliament

(Case T-196/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the Institutions - Member of Parliament - Decision excluding from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of the term of office - Measure of internal organisation of the work of the Parliament - No effect on the conditions under which the mandate of a Member of Parliament is exercised - Act not open to challenge - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 179/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thierry Mariani (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Moore and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision D 301939 of the Co-Chairs of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of the European Parliament of 3 March 2022 to exclude him from all participation in the election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of his term of office as a Member of Parliament (2019-2024).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Thierry Mariani shall pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Thierry Mariani shall pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/44

---

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Lacapelle v Parliament

(Case T-240/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the Institutions - Member of Parliament - Decision excluding from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of the term of office - Measure of internal organisation of the work of the Parliament - No effect on the conditions under which the mandate of a Member of Parliament is exercised - Act not open to challenge - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 179/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Lin Lacapelle (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Moore and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision D 301937 of the Co-Chairs of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of the European Parliament of 3 March 2022 to exclude him from all participation in the election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of his term of office as a Member of Parliament (2019-2024).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Jean-Lin Lacapelle shall pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Jean-Lin Lacapelle shall pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/44

---

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Juvin v Parliament

(Case T-241/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the Institutions - Member of Parliament - Decision excluding from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of the term of office - Measure of internal organisation of the work of the Parliament - No effect on the conditions under which the mandate of a Member of Parliament is exercised - Act not open to challenge - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 179/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hervé Juvin (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Moore and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision D 301936 of the Co-Chairs of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of the European Parliament of 3 March 2022 to exclude him from all participation in the election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of his term of office as a Member of Parliament (2019-2024).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Hervé Juvin shall pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Hervé Juvin shall pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/45

---

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Mordalski v EUIPO — Anita Food (ANITA)

(Case T-254/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - EU trade mark that has ceased to exist - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 179/66)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Grzegorz Mordalski (Działoszyn, Poland) (represented by: A. Korbela, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Anita Food, SA (Lima, Peru)

Re:

By his 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 3 March 2022 (Case R 1616/2021-4).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/45

---

Order of the General Court of 23 March 2023 — Domaine Boyar International v EUIPO — Consorzio DOC Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia (BOLGARÉ)

(Case T-300/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BOLGARÉ - Previous designation of origin ‘Bolgheri’ - Article 8(4a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 46(1)(d) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013)

(2023/C 179/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Domaine Boyar International EAD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: F. Bojinova, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Consorzio per la tutela dei vini con denominazione di origine Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia (Consorzio DOC Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia) (Castagneto Carducci, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and N. Colombo, lawyers)

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 21 March 2022 (Case R 2564/2019-2).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Domaine Boyar International EAD shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Consorzio per la tutela dei vini con denominazione di origine Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia (Consorzio DOC Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Domaine Boyar International EAD shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Consorzio per la tutela dei vini con denominazione di origine Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia (Consorzio DOC Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia).

| 3. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 18.7.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/46

---

Order of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Oxyzoglou v Commission

(Case T-342/22) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Retirement pensions - Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU - Transfer to the EU scheme - Additional years of pensionable service - Action for annulment - Claim for repayment of part of the capital transferred - Unjust enrichment - Time limit for complaints - Manifest inadmissibility - Application for an order - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

(2023/C 179/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Despina Oxyzoglou (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Grisay and A. Ansay, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Interveners, in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and M. Windisch, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and X. Chamodraka, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, principally, (i) to have set aside the decision of the European Commission of 11 March 2022 rejecting her complaint which sought annulment of the opinion of 21 April 2020 determining her rights to a retirement pension, and (ii) to have her file referred to the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment in order to determine the amount to be returned to her, and in the alternative, to have the Commission be ordered to pay the sum of EUR 30 439,50, in respect of unjust enrichment, and, in the further alternative, to request the Commission to clarify its calculation method and to apply it in the present case.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms. Despina Oxyzoglou shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms. Despina Oxyzoglou shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/47

---

Order of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Mozelsio v Commission

(Case T-343/22) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Retirement pensions - Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU - Transfer to the EU scheme - Additional years of pensionable service - Action for annulment - Claim for repayment of part of the capital transferred - Unjust enrichment - Time limit for complaints - Manifest inadmissibility - Application for an order - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

(2023/C 179/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Muriel Mozelsio (Enghien, Belgium) (represented by: D. Grisay and A. Ansay, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Interveners, in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and M. Windisch, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and X. Chamodraka, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, principally, (i) to have set aside the decision of the European Commission of 11 March 2022 rejecting her complaint which sought annulment of the opinion of 16 June 2020 determining her rights to a retirement pension, and (ii) to have her file referred to the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment in order to determine the amount to be returned to her, and in the alternative, to have the Commission be ordered to pay the sum of EUR 15 051,38, in respect of unjust enrichment, and, in the further alternative, to request the Commission to clarify its calculation method and to apply it in the present case.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms. Muriel Mozelsio shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms. Muriel Mozelsio shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/47

---

Order of the General Court of 31 March 2023 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (MATE MATE)

(Case T-482/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MATE MATE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Misleading character - Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 179/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Henry GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, D. Mienert and J. Si-Ha Selbmann, lawyers)

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

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 12 May 2022 (Case R 406/2021-1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/48

---

Order of the General Court of 30 March 2023 — ATPN v Commission

(Case T-567/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Environment - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 - Nuclear energy - Sustainable activity - Association - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 179/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Association Trinationale de Protection Nucléaire (ATPN) (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen, A. Nijenhuis and C. Auvret, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 of 9 March 2022 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 as regards economic activities in certain energy sectors and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 as regards specific public disclosures for those economic activities (OJ 2022 L 188, p. 1).

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 rule on the application to intervene lodged by the French Republic. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to rule on the application to intervene lodged by the French Republic.

| 3. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The French Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The French Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 418, 31.10.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/49

---

Order of the General Court of 28 March 2023 — Primicerj v Commission

(Case T-612/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Initial refusal of access - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility - Request for the Court to issue directions - Lack of jurisdiction)

(2023/C 179/72)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Paola Primicerj (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Iorio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Spina, acting as Agent)

Re:

By her action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 August 2022 refusing her request for access to the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022, issued by the Commission to the Italian Republic in the context of infringement procedure 2016/4081, relating to the compatibility with EU law of the national law governing the services provided by magistrati onorari (honorary judges).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed in part on the ground of clear lack of jurisdiction and in part for being manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed in part on the ground of clear lack of jurisdiction and in part for being manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to rule on the application for leave to intervene submitted by Mr Gabriele Di Girolamo, Ms Roberta Tesei and the Associazione Nazionale Giudici di Pace (ANGDP). |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to rule on the application for leave to intervene submitted by Mr Gabriele Di Girolamo, Ms Roberta Tesei and the Associazione Nazionale Giudici di Pace (ANGDP).

| 3. | Ms Paola Primicerji shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ms Paola Primicerji shall pay the costs.

| 4. | Mr Di Girolamo, Ms Tesei and the ANGDP shall bear their own costs relating to their application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Mr Di Girolamo, Ms Tesei and the ANGDP shall bear their own costs relating to their application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 14.11.2022.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/49

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — TP v Commission

(Case T-776/22 R)

(Interim relief - Public procurement - Financial Regulation - Exclusion from procurement procedures funded by the general budget of the European Union and by the EDF for a period of two years - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of any urgency)

(2023/C 179/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TP (represented by: T. Faber, F. Bonke and I. Sauvagnac, lawyers)

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

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of the decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2022, by which it was excluded from participating in award procedures governed by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1), from being selected for implementing EU funds and from participating in award procedures governed by Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877 of 26 November 2018 on the financial regulation applicable to the 11th European Development Fund, and repealing Regulation (EU) 2015/323 (OJ 2018 L 307, p. 1).

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.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/50

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 27 March 2023 — Cogebi and Cogebi v Council

(Case T-782/22 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Prohibition on purchasing, importing or transferring, directly or indirectly, goods which generate significant revenues for Russia into the Union - Application for suspension of operation - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 179/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Cogebi (Beersel, Belgium), Cogebi, a.s. (Tábor, Czech Republic) (represented by: H. over de Linden, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and E. Nadbath, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicants seek suspension of the operation of Annex VI to Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 of 6 October 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 259 I, p. 3), in so far as it amends Annex XXI to Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), by inserting CN code 6814 into the list of goods and technology referred to in Article 3i of Regulation No 833/2014.

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.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/51

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 27 March 2023 — Enmacc v Commission

(Case T-1/23 R)

(Interim relief - Public supply contracts - Services for the organisation of demand aggregation and tendering of gas under the EU Energy Platform - Application for interim measures - Weighing of interests)

(2023/C 179/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Enmacc GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. von Bonin, A. Pliego Selie and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà, S. Romoli, G. Gattinara and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, suspension of the operation of the European Commission decision of 12 December 2022 to initiate or continue the negotiated procurement procedure ENER/2022/NP/0041 without prior publication of a contract notice and without having invited the applicant to participate; in the alternative, suspension of the award of the contract in relation to the procurement procedure at issue and, in the further alternative, suspension of the signature of the contract in relation to that procedure.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/51

---

Action brought on 9 January 2023 — Koppers Denmark and Others v Commission

(Case T-9/23)

(2023/C 179/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Koppers Denmark (Nyborg, Denmark) and 9 others (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

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

—

declare the application admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the contested Regulation, (1) in as far as it introduces restrictions on the placing on the market of treated articles; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested Regulation, (1) in as far as it introduces restrictions on the placing on the market of treated articles;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings; and,

| — | take such other or further measures as justice may require. |
| --- | --- |

—

take such other or further measures as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 14(4), 58(2) and 58(3) of the BPR, (2) acted ultra vires/exceeded its competences and breached the applicants’ legitimate expectations by imposing the Restrictions on the Treated Articles. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 14(4), 58(2) and 58(3) of the BPR, (2) acted ultra vires/exceeded its competences and breached the applicants’ legitimate expectations by imposing the Restrictions on the Treated Articles.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and breached the principle of legal certainty and the duty to state reasons by imposing the Restrictions on the Treated Articles. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and breached the principle of legal certainty and the duty to state reasons by imposing the Restrictions on the Treated Articles.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations by prohibiting the placing on the market of treated articles without having established the existence of a ‘major concern’ thereby diverging from its own guidance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations by prohibiting the placing on the market of treated articles without having established the existence of a ‘major concern’ thereby diverging from its own guidance.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 1(1) of the BPR and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by imposing the Restrictions on the Treated Articles. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 1(1) of the BPR and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by imposing the Restrictions on the Treated Articles.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of legal certainty and committed manifest errors of fact and of assessment by failing to take into account all relevant information when introducing a labelling requirement concerning the storage requirements of treated articles in the Contested Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of legal certainty and committed manifest errors of fact and of assessment by failing to take into account all relevant information when introducing a labelling requirement concerning the storage requirements of treated articles in the Contested Regulation.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 67-68, 129 and Annex XVII entry 31 of the REACH Regulation (3) and failed to take all relevant information into account and exceeded its competences under Article 14(4) of the BPR when imposing the Restrictions in the Contested Regulation limiting the existing restrictions under the REACH Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 67-68, 129 and Annex XVII entry 31 of the REACH Regulation (3) and failed to take all relevant information into account and exceeded its competences under Article 14(4) of the BPR when imposing the Restrictions in the Contested Regulation limiting the existing restrictions under the REACH Regulation.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1950 of 14 October 2022 renewing the approval of creosote as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 8 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2022, L 269, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products, as amended (OJ 2012, L 167, p. 1).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, as amended.(OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1).

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/52

---

Action brought on 20 January 2023 — Feport v Commission

(Case T-17/23)

(2023/C 179/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Federation of European Private Port Operators (Feport) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Le Bret, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Commission has failed to act in Case SA.33828 — Greek tonnage tax scheme by not opening the formal procedure against Greece, and in any case by not taking a clear position in accordance with article 23 of the Procedural Regulation (1) and 108 TFUE; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Commission has failed to act in Case SA.33828 — Greek tonnage tax scheme by not opening the formal procedure against Greece, and in any case by not taking a clear position in accordance with article 23 of the Procedural Regulation (1) and 108 TFUE;

| — | order the Commission to pay for the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay for the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the Applicant considers that all conditions of the failure to act pursuant to article 265 TFUE are fulfilled in this case and that this failure entails several breaches of EU Treaties, principles and secondary law. In this respect it puts forward four pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that by not opening the formal procedure against Greece the Commission failed to comply with its conclusions on Case SA.33828 — Greek tonnage tax scheme and with its 2003 guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (Maritime Guidelines). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by not opening the formal procedure against Greece the Commission failed to comply with its conclusions on Case SA.33828 — Greek tonnage tax scheme and with its 2003 guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (Maritime Guidelines).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to comply with the Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Procedural Regulation, article 23) and Article 108 TFEU by not opening the formal investigation procedure seven years after the Article 23 decision, and that by refusing to take a clear position in this regard the Commission harmed the rights of interested parties in breach of Procedural Regulation (article 24), Charter of Fundamental rights (article 41 and 47) and EU principles (such as legitimate expectations). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to comply with the Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Procedural Regulation, article 23) and Article 108 TFEU by not opening the formal investigation procedure seven years after the Article 23 decision, and that by refusing to take a clear position in this regard the Commission harmed the rights of interested parties in breach of Procedural Regulation (article 24), Charter of Fundamental rights (article 41 and 47) and EU principles (such as legitimate expectations).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to comply with equal treatment principle as protected by EU Charter (Article 20 and 21) and its duty of sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TUE, by refusing ad vitam eternam to act based on article 107 TFEU against the Greek tonnage tax scheme, while dismantling equivalent State aid schemes to port in other Member States in a limited time frame. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to comply with equal treatment principle as protected by EU Charter (Article 20 and 21) and its duty of sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TUE, by refusing ad vitam eternam to act based on article 107 TFEU against the Greek tonnage tax scheme, while dismantling equivalent State aid schemes to port in other Member States in a limited time frame.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law alleging that the Commission failed to comply with international tax standards and EU tax law and commitments, regarding minimum taxation rules which will have to be implemented by all Member States as from 1st January 2024 on the basis of the OECD Pillar Two Agreement (December 2021) and of Commission Proposal for a Council Directive on ensuring a global minimum taxation for multinational groups in the Union (December 2021) as agreed by the Ecofin Council in December 2022. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law alleging that the Commission failed to comply with international tax standards and EU tax law and commitments, regarding minimum taxation rules which will have to be implemented by all Member States as from 1st January 2024 on the basis of the OECD Pillar Two Agreement (December 2021) and of Commission Proposal for a Council Directive on ensuring a global minimum taxation for multinational groups in the Union (December 2021) as agreed by the Ecofin Council in December 2022.

---

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

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/53

---

Action brought on 20 January 2023 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-18/23)

(2023/C 179/78)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Leftheriotou, A.-E. Vasilopoulou and O. Pastellas, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul, in its entirety, Commission Implementing Decision C(2002)8047 final of 15 November 2022 on the financial treatment to be applied to expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance Section (‘EAGGF-G’), in certain cases of irregularity in Greece; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in its entirety, Commission Implementing Decision C(2002)8047 final of 15 November 2022 on the financial treatment to be applied to expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance Section (‘EAGGF-G’), in certain cases of irregularity in Greece;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as concerns the amount corresponding to the part of the recovery that was annulled by the national court in Case 2014/10019, that is to say, limit the amount to be recovered in that case to EUR 48 619,63 rather than EUR 145 854,46; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as concerns the amount corresponding to the part of the recovery that was annulled by the national court in Case 2014/10019, that is to say, limit the amount to be recovered in that case to EUR 48 619,63 rather than EUR 145 854,46; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the Hellenic Republic. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that there is no legal basis for the adoption of the contested Commission decision in so far as concerns charging the amount at issue to the Hellenic Republic, since Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 (1) has been repealed and no longer applies to cases which fall under the 1994-1999 programme period, and Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (2) applies only to cases of irregularity in the context of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that there is no legal basis for the adoption of the contested Commission decision in so far as concerns charging the amount at issue to the Hellenic Republic, since Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 (1) has been repealed and no longer applies to cases which fall under the 1994-1999 programme period, and Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (2) applies only to cases of irregularity in the context of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging error of fact, in that the Commission found that the Greek authorities had failed to show diligence in the management of Case 2014/10019. It is also claimed that charging the amount of EUR 145 854,46 to the Hellenic Republic is disproportionate. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging error of fact, in that the Commission found that the Greek authorities had failed to show diligence in the management of Case 2014/10019. It is also claimed that charging the amount of EUR 145 854,46 to the Hellenic Republic is disproportionate.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organization of an information system in this field (OJ 1994 L 178, p. 43).

(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 34, p. 549).

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/54

---

Action brought on 23 January 2023 — Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) and Others v Commission

(Case T-37/23)

(2023/C 179/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore), MJN Global Holdings BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Mead Johnson Nutrition Co. (Chicago, Illinois, United States) (represented by: C. Quigley, KC, M. Whitehouse and P. Halford, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s Decision C(2022) 7665 final of 31 October 2022 in Case SA.34914 (2013/C) — Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime (the ‘Contested Decision’); (1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s Decision C(2022) 7665 final of 31 October 2022 in Case SA.34914 (2013/C) — Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime (the ‘Contested Decision’); (1) and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence, in that the Commission has no competence pursuant to Article 92(3)(a) of the Agreement on the Withdrawal of the UK from the EU, as the case file SA.34914 and all associated procedures were closed and terminated by the adoption of the final decision (EU) 2019/700 of 19 December 2018; (2) and no new case number was allocated to the Commission’s investigation concerning MJN Holdings (Gibraltar) Limited prior to the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, or at all. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence, in that the Commission has no competence pursuant to Article 92(3)(a) of the Agreement on the Withdrawal of the UK from the EU, as the case file SA.34914 and all associated procedures were closed and terminated by the adoption of the final decision (EU) 2019/700 of 19 December 2018; (2) and no new case number was allocated to the Commission’s investigation concerning MJN Holdings (Gibraltar) Limited prior to the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, or at all.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement, in that the Commission has infringed Article 6(1) of the Procedural Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (3) which requires the Commission in a decision to open a formal investigation to summarise all the relevant issues of fact and law in its possession, by failing to include relevant information that the applicants had previously submitted, and which the Commission had in its possession, as regards the non-continuation of the 2012 MJN GibCo tax ruling beyond 1 January 2014 and as regards the non-taxability of the royalty income on the proper application of Gibraltar law. Moreover, prior to taking the Article 6(1) decision (the Contested Decision), the Commission, in the course of its preliminary assessment and in accordance with the principle of sound administration, should have, in any event, discussed with the United Kingdom the information previously submitted by the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement, in that the Commission has infringed Article 6(1) of the Procedural Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (3) which requires the Commission in a decision to open a formal investigation to summarise all the relevant issues of fact and law in its possession, by failing to include relevant information that the applicants had previously submitted, and which the Commission had in its possession, as regards the non-continuation of the 2012 MJN GibCo tax ruling beyond 1 January 2014 and as regards the non-taxability of the royalty income on the proper application of Gibraltar law. Moreover, prior to taking the Article 6(1) decision (the Contested Decision), the Commission, in the course of its preliminary assessment and in accordance with the principle of sound administration, should have, in any event, discussed with the United Kingdom the information previously submitted by the applicants.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law relating to the application of Article 107 and 108 TFEU, in that the Contested Decision was taken after a wholly unreasonable delay, contrary to the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law relating to the application of Article 107 and 108 TFEU, in that the Contested Decision was taken after a wholly unreasonable delay, contrary to the principle of sound administration.

---

(1)  OJ 2023, C 52, p. 10.

(2)  Commission Decision (EU) 2019/700 of 19 December 2018 on the State Aid SA.34914 (2013/C) implemented by the United Kingdom as regards the Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime (notified under document C(2018) 7848) (OJ 2019, L 119, p. 151).

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

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/55

---

Action brought on 6 February 2023 — FFPE Council section v Council

(Case T-44/23)

(2023/C 179/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Civil Service Federation Council section (FFPE Council section) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare this action admissible and well founded; and consequently, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare this action admissible and well founded; and consequently,

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay token damages of EUR 1 for the non-material damage allegedly suffered, and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay token damages of EUR 1 for the non-material damage allegedly suffered, and

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action for annulment of the Council’s note of 24 November 2022 informing the applicant of the findings and consequences of the verification procedure opened against it pursuant to the agreement of 28 March 2006 concluded between the Council of the European Union and the trade unions or professional organisations of the staff of the General Secretariat of the Council (‘the agreement’), the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the agreement and of the engagement letter. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the agreement and of the engagement letter.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the spirit of sincere cooperation resulting from the agreement, the principle of good administration and the principle of performance in good faith of agreements. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the spirit of sincere cooperation resulting from the agreement, the principle of good administration and the principle of performance in good faith of agreements.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/55

---

Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Pollinis France v Commission

(Case T-94/23)

(2023/C 179/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pollinis France (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Bailleux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision, dated 6 December 2022, rejecting the applicant’s request for internal review, regarding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/708 (1) (‘the contested decision’), insofar as it extends the approval period of the active substance boscalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision, dated 6 December 2022, rejecting the applicant’s request for internal review, regarding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/708 (1) (‘the contested decision’), insofar as it extends the approval period of the active substance boscalid;

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

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an unlawful reading of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).
  The contested decision is based on a reading of Article 17 which is not compatible with the provisions and objectives of Regulation No 1107/2009, with the precautionary principle and with several primary law provisions [Articles 168 and 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)].
  Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009 cannot be interpreted as obliging the Commission to extend an approval indefinitely, irrespective of the number and duration of previously granted extensions and irrespective of the risks such an extension may pose for human health or for the environment.
  In the case of boscalid in particular, the Commission could not extend for so many years its approval considering that the application for renewal raised a large number of questions from EFSA and that numerous studies raise serious doubts as to the safety of boscalid for both human health and the environment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an unlawful reading of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).

The contested decision is based on a reading of Article 17 which is not compatible with the provisions and objectives of Regulation No 1107/2009, with the precautionary principle and with several primary law provisions [Articles 168 and 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)].

Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009 cannot be interpreted as obliging the Commission to extend an approval indefinitely, irrespective of the number and duration of previously granted extensions and irrespective of the risks such an extension may pose for human health or for the environment.

In the case of boscalid in particular, the Commission could not extend for so many years its approval considering that the application for renewal raised a large number of questions from EFSA and that numerous studies raise serious doubts as to the safety of boscalid for both human health and the environment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, in subsidiary order, the illegality of Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009.
  If the Court were to take the view that the contested decision (and the Commission Implementing Regulation 2022/708) are based on a sound reading of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009, this legislative provision should be set aside for the purpose of the present proceedings, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, because it would be contrary to the precautionary principle, Articles 168 and 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter. Accordingly, Article 17 should not be applied and could not serve as a proper legal justification for the contested decision, which should therefore be annulled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in subsidiary order, the illegality of Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009.

If the Court were to take the view that the contested decision (and the Commission Implementing Regulation 2022/708) are based on a sound reading of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009, this legislative provision should be set aside for the purpose of the present proceedings, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, because it would be contrary to the precautionary principle, Articles 168 and 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter. Accordingly, Article 17 should not be applied and could not serve as a proper legal justification for the contested decision, which should therefore be annulled.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the requirements set out in Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009.
  The Commission erred in considering that the conditions for extension under Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009 were satisfied:






  — | the Commission erred in considering that the delay in the renewal process was not attributable to the applicant for renewal, without investigating at all the role played by the applicant in that delay; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the requirements set out in Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009.

The Commission erred in considering that the conditions for extension under Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009 were satisfied:

—

the Commission erred in considering that the delay in the renewal process was not attributable to the applicant for renewal, without investigating at all the role played by the applicant in that delay;

| — | the Commission erred in considering that the extension of the approval period of boscalid, for the fifth consecutive year, was necessary to examine the application for renewal. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission erred in considering that the extension of the approval period of boscalid, for the fifth consecutive year, was necessary to examine the application for renewal.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons.
  The Commission erred both in finding the Commission Implementing Regulation 2022/708 as sufficiently reasoned and in failing to state, in the contested decision, the reasons for the delay in the reassessment procedure. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons.

The Commission erred both in finding the Commission Implementing Regulation 2022/708 as sufficiently reasoned and in failing to state, in the contested decision, the reasons for the delay in the reassessment procedure.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/708 of 5 May 2022 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval periods of the active substances 2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid methylester, acetic acid, aclonifen, aluminium ammonium sulphate, aluminium phosphide, aluminium silicate, beflubutamid, benthiavalicarb, boscalid, calcium carbide, captan, cymoxanil, dimethomorph, dodemorph, ethephon, ethylene, extract from tea tree, fat distilation residues, fatty acids C7 to C20, fluoxastrobin, flurochloridone, folpet, formetanate, gibberellic acid, gibberellins, hydrolysed proteins, iron sulphate, magnesium phosphide, metam, metamitron, metazachlor, metribuzin, milbemectin, phenmedipham, pirimiphos-methyl, plant oils/clove oil, plant oils/rape seed oil, plant oils/spear mint oil, propamocarb, proquinazid, prothioconazole, pyrethrins, quartz sand, fish oil, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/sheep fat, S-metolachlor, Straight Chain Lepidopteran Pheromones, sulcotrione, tebuconazole and urea (OJ 2022 L 133, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/57

---

Action brought on 21 February 2023 — PAN Europe v Commission

(Case T-104/23)

(2023/C 179/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Bailleux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision, dated 12 December 2022 and notified to the applicant on 13 December 2022, to partially reject a confirmatory application lodged in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision, dated 12 December 2022 and notified to the applicant on 13 December 2022, to partially reject a confirmatory application lodged in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; (1)

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

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission decision breaches:

| — | Article 2(1), Article 4(2), second indent, and Article 4(3), second subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 2(1), Article 4(2), second indent, and Article 4(3), second subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001; and

| — | Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2)

More specifically, the Commission decision must be annulled to the extent that it refuses access to documents based on an unlawful application of the exceptions relating to the protection of court proceedings [Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001] and of the decision- making process [Article 4(3), second subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001].

---

(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)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/58

---

Action brought on 28 February 2023 — VB v BCE

(Case T-124/23)

(2023/C 179/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VB (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 4 April 2022 informing him that he will not receive the subsistence allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 4 April 2022 informing him that he will not receive the subsistence allowance;

| — | annul, if need be, the decision of 2 August 2022, rejecting his administrative review submitted on 2 June 2022 against the aforementioned decision refusing him the benefit of the subsistence allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, if need be, the decision of 2 August 2022, rejecting his administrative review submitted on 2 June 2022 against the aforementioned decision refusing him the benefit of the subsistence allowance;

| — | annul, if need be, the decision of 19 December 2022, rejecting his grievance procedure submitted on 30 September 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, if need be, the decision of 19 December 2022, rejecting his grievance procedure submitted on 30 September 2022;

| — | order the payment of the sum of EUR 9 270 (i.e. subsistence allowance for the 3-month period), increased by interest calculated at the relevant interest rate (‘interest rate on the main refinancing operations’) of the European Central Bank + two percentage points, for the period between 1 April 2022 and the date of effective payment of the claimed amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of the sum of EUR 9 270 (i.e. subsistence allowance for the 3-month period), increased by interest calculated at the relevant interest rate (‘interest rate on the main refinancing operations’) of the European Central Bank + two percentage points, for the period between 1 April 2022 and the date of effective payment of the claimed amount;

| — | compensate the applicant’s moral damages suffered with the symbolic amount of EUR 1; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the applicant’s moral damages suffered with the symbolic amount of EUR 1;

| — | order the defendant to reimburse the legal costs borne by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to reimburse the legal costs borne by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the breach of Articles 4.1.1 and 4.5.1 of the ECB Staff Rules and the breach of the principles of legal certainty and lack of retroactive effect. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the breach of Articles 4.1.1 and 4.5.1 of the ECB Staff Rules and the breach of the principles of legal certainty and lack of retroactive effect.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the breach of the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the breach of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the breach of the duty of care.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/58

---

Action brought on 13 March 2023 — Nardi v ECB

(Case T-131/23)

(2023/C 179/84)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Anna Nardi (Naples, Italy) (represented by: M. De Siena, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | find and declare that the European Central Bank (ECB), represented by the President Christine Lagarde, is non-contractually liable:






  (a) | for having caused a EUR 626 134,29 economic loss in the form of a collapse in the value of the securities owned by the applicant titled SI FTSE.COPERP, documented and described for the first time in the application in paragraph 2 of the section headed ‘Facts’, amounting to a loss equal to 81,54 % of the entire value of the capital invested, namely EUR 767 856,16, in so far as, on 12 March 2020, Christine Lagarde, in her capacity as President of the ECB, used the infamous phrase ‘We are not here to close spreads, this is not the function or the mission of the ECB’ and thereby caused a significant reduction in the value of securities on stock exchanges around the world and a reduction of 16,92 % on the Milan Stock Exchange, namely in a percentage never before seen in the history of that institution; the phrase was used in a press conference broadcast globally, and confirmed that the ECB would no longer guarantee the value of securities issued by countries in difficulty and, therefore, signalled a massive change in the direction of the monetary policy that had been adopted by the ECB under the presidency of the previous President, whose mandate finished in November 2019; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

find and declare that the European Central Bank (ECB), represented by the President Christine Lagarde, is non-contractually liable:

(a)

for having caused a EUR 626 134,29 economic loss in the form of a collapse in the value of the securities owned by the applicant titled SI FTSE.COPERP, documented and described for the first time in the application in paragraph 2 of the section headed ‘Facts’, amounting to a loss equal to 81,54 % of the entire value of the capital invested, namely EUR 767 856,16, in so far as, on 12 March 2020, Christine Lagarde, in her capacity as President of the ECB, used the infamous phrase ‘We are not here to close spreads, this is not the function or the mission of the ECB’ and thereby caused a significant reduction in the value of securities on stock exchanges around the world and a reduction of 16,92 % on the Milan Stock Exchange, namely in a percentage never before seen in the history of that institution; the phrase was used in a press conference broadcast globally, and confirmed that the ECB would no longer guarantee the value of securities issued by countries in difficulty and, therefore, signalled a massive change in the direction of the monetary policy that had been adopted by the ECB under the presidency of the previous President, whose mandate finished in November 2019;

| (b) | for having caused a reduction in the value of the applicant’s assets through that conduct and as a result of the huge drop in the index of the Milan Stock Exchange; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

for having caused a reduction in the value of the applicant’s assets through that conduct and as a result of the huge drop in the index of the Milan Stock Exchange;

| (c) | for having caused the applicant to suffer a financial loss of EUR 626 134,29 in the form of actual loss and of EUR 912 673,83 in the form of loss of profit; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

for having caused the applicant to suffer a financial loss of EUR 626 134,29 in the form of actual loss and of EUR 912 673,83 in the form of loss of profit;

| (d) | for having therefore caused the applicant to suffer a financial loss amounting to EUR 1 538 808,12 in total; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

for having therefore caused the applicant to suffer a financial loss amounting to EUR 1 538 808,12 in total;

| (e) | for having caused non-financial loss in the form of the psychological suffering of the applicant and the applicant’s family and damage to honour, reputation and personal and professional identity quantifiable at EUR 500 000,00; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

for having caused non-financial loss in the form of the psychological suffering of the applicant and the applicant’s family and damage to honour, reputation and personal and professional identity quantifiable at EUR 500 000,00;

| (f) | for having caused a loss of opportunity; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

for having caused a loss of opportunity;

| — | order the ECB, in the person of the President for the time being, to provide to the applicant compensation for financial loss (comprising actual loss and loss of profit), the non-financial loss outlined above and a loss of opportunity, assessed according to the criteria set out in the relevant chapters and paragraphs of the application, by making payments in the following amounts (i) EUR 1 538 808,12 for financial loss, (ii) EUR 500 000,00 for non-material loss and (iii) and, therefore, a total amount of EUR 2 038 808,12; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB, in the person of the President for the time being, to provide to the applicant compensation for financial loss (comprising actual loss and loss of profit), the non-financial loss outlined above and a loss of opportunity, assessed according to the criteria set out in the relevant chapters and paragraphs of the application, by making payments in the following amounts (i) EUR 1 538 808,12 for financial loss, (ii) EUR 500 000,00 for non-material loss and (iii) and, therefore, a total amount of EUR 2 038 808,12;

| — | in the alternative, order the ECB, in the person of the President for the time being, to pay to the applicant compensation for the categories of loss listed above, in amounts different from those above, established in the course of proceedings, to the extent deemed fair, including by having recourse to an expert’s report commissioned by the Court, pursuant to Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, order the ECB, in the person of the President for the time being, to pay to the applicant compensation for the categories of loss listed above, in amounts different from those above, established in the course of proceedings, to the extent deemed fair, including by having recourse to an expert’s report commissioned by the Court, pursuant to Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union;

| — | order the EBC to pay the amount which the Court assesses, according to its own unbiased assessment, in respect of the loss of opportunity; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EBC to pay the amount which the Court assesses, according to its own unbiased assessment, in respect of the loss of opportunity;

| — | order the EBC to pay default interest to be calculated from 12 March 2020, the date of the event that gave rise to the loss, to the date on which the compensation is actually paid; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EBC to pay default interest to be calculated from 12 March 2020, the date of the event that gave rise to the loss, to the date on which the compensation is actually paid;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the ECB is liable under the third paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 2043 of the Codice civile (Italian Civil Code) for the financial and non-material loss suffered by the applicant and indicating the amounts of those sums. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the ECB is liable under the third paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 2043 of the Codice civile (Italian Civil Code) for the financial and non-material loss suffered by the applicant and indicating the amounts of those sums.

| 2. | Second plea in law, indicating the significance of the financial loss, non-material loss and loss of opportunity allegedly suffered by the applicant and explaining the principles applied to determine them. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, indicating the significance of the financial loss, non-material loss and loss of opportunity allegedly suffered by the applicant and explaining the principles applied to determine them.

| 3. | Third plea in law, referring to principles established in the case-law of the European Union, in particular in the judgments of 28 October 2021, Vialto Consulting v Commission (C-650/19 P, EU:C:2021:879), of 9 February 2022, QI and Others v Commission and ECB (T-868/16, EU:T:2022:58) and of 21 January 2014, Klein v Commission (T-309/10, EU:T:2014:19).
  The applicant claims that the conditions for an EU institution to incur non-contractual liability vis-à-vis an EU citizen have been satisfied, as supported by a sworn statement provided by a technical consultant and annexed to the application, in accordance with the EU legislation governing the ECB, its bodies and their functions. The applicant alleges infringements by the ECB of primary and secondary EU law and infringements and abuse of power by the President of the ECB.
  The applicant alleges that, on 12 March 2020, the ECB, acting through its President, infringed Article 127 TFEU under Chapter 2, which is headed ‘Monetary Policy’, Articles 3, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 38 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the ECB, and Article 17.2 and 17.3 of the Rules of Procedure adopted by a decision of the ECB on 19 February 2004. (1) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, referring to principles established in the case-law of the European Union, in particular in the judgments of 28 October 2021, Vialto Consulting v Commission (C-650/19 P, EU:C:2021:879), of 9 February 2022, QI and Others v Commission and ECB (T-868/16, EU:T:2022:58) and of 21 January 2014, Klein v Commission (T-309/10, EU:T:2014:19).

The applicant claims that the conditions for an EU institution to incur non-contractual liability vis-à-vis an EU citizen have been satisfied, as supported by a sworn statement provided by a technical consultant and annexed to the application, in accordance with the EU legislation governing the ECB, its bodies and their functions. The applicant alleges infringements by the ECB of primary and secondary EU law and infringements and abuse of power by the President of the ECB.

The applicant alleges that, on 12 March 2020, the ECB, acting through its President, infringed Article 127 TFEU under Chapter 2, which is headed ‘Monetary Policy’, Articles 3, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 38 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the ECB, and Article 17.2 and 17.3 of the Rules of Procedure adopted by a decision of the ECB on 19 February 2004. (1)

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, concerning the characterisation of, reasons for and documentation of the financial loss suffered by the applicant (actual loss and loss of profit). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, concerning the characterisation of, reasons for and documentation of the financial loss suffered by the applicant (actual loss and loss of profit).

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, concerning the characterisation of, reasons for and documentation of psychological harm and damage to reputation and personal and professional identity. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, concerning the characterisation of, reasons for and documentation of psychological harm and damage to reputation and personal and professional identity.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, concerning the explanation of, reasons for and evidence of the presumption of and the calculation of the likelihood of loss of opportunity and a request that this be calculated on equitable principles. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, concerning the explanation of, reasons for and evidence of the presumption of and the calculation of the likelihood of loss of opportunity and a request that this be calculated on equitable principles.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, concerning the principles established in the EU case-law concerning non-financial loss caused by the EU institutions vis-à-vis EU citizens in particular in the judgment of 12 September 2007, Combescot v Commission, (T-250/04, EU:T:2007:262). |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, concerning the principles established in the EU case-law concerning non-financial loss caused by the EU institutions vis-à-vis EU citizens in particular in the judgment of 12 September 2007, Combescot v Commission, (T-250/04, EU:T:2007:262).

---

(1)  Decision 2004/257/EC of the European Central Bank of 19 February 2004 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank (ECB/2004/2) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 33), as amended by Decision ECB/2014/1 of the European Central Bank of 22 January 2014 (OJ 2014 L 95, p. 56).

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/60

---

Action brought on 10 March 2023 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-137/23)

(2023/C 179/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 December 2022 C(2022) 9544 (final) granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) for ‘Dimethyl Fumarate Teva — dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 December 2022 C(2022) 9544 (final) granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) for ‘Dimethyl Fumarate Teva — dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to observe the system of Directive 2001/83/EC (2) in relation to the rules on regulatory data protection, including Article 6(1) of that Directive, and the obligations of generic applicants under Article 10(1) of that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to observe the system of Directive 2001/83/EC (2) in relation to the rules on regulatory data protection, including Article 6(1) of that Directive, and the obligations of generic applicants under Article 10(1) of that Directive.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to recognise the consequences of the Opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of 11 November 2021 for the question whether the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Fumaderm was capable of commencing a global marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera in accordance with Article 6(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2001/83/EC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to recognise the consequences of the Opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of 11 November 2021 for the question whether the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Fumaderm was capable of commencing a global marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera in accordance with Article 6(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2001/83/EC.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004, L 136, p. 1).

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

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/61

---

Action brought on 17 March 2023 — VI v Commission

(Case T-147/23)

(2023/C 179/86)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the following decisions:






  — | decision of 20 May 2022 by which the applicant was informed that she had obtained 53 points for the assessment by Talent Screener in Competition EPSO/AST/150/21 for laboratory technicians, whereas the minimum number of points for admission to the next stage was 57 points; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the following decisions:

—

decision of 20 May 2022 by which the applicant was informed that she had obtained 53 points for the assessment by Talent Screener in Competition EPSO/AST/150/21 for laboratory technicians, whereas the minimum number of points for admission to the next stage was 57 points; and

| — | decision of the appointing authority of 8 December 2022, ARES (2022) s.9324205, rejecting the complaint lodged on 14 June 2022 and registered under number No R/30/22 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

decision of the appointing authority of 8 December 2022, ARES (2022) s.9324205, rejecting the complaint lodged on 14 June 2022 and registered under number No R/30/22 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in the evaluation of the diplomas and of the length of the applicant’s professional experience, which was arbitrarily reduced by the Selection Board, and infringement of the competition notice, which did not allow for redistribution of the length of professional experience within the various criteria of the Talent Screener. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in the evaluation of the diplomas and of the length of the applicant’s professional experience, which was arbitrarily reduced by the Selection Board, and infringement of the competition notice, which did not allow for redistribution of the length of professional experience within the various criteria of the Talent Screener.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in so far as the Selection Board did not have the power to determine the weighting factors. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in so far as the Selection Board did not have the power to determine the weighting factors.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 27 and 29 of, and of the first paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III to, the Staff Regulations, in so far as the Selection Board failed to ascertain the accuracy of the degrees and professional experience declared by the candidates in the Talent Screener before drawing up the list of candidates admitted to the next stage at the assessment centre. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 27 and 29 of, and of the first paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III to, the Staff Regulations, in so far as the Selection Board failed to ascertain the accuracy of the degrees and professional experience declared by the candidates in the Talent Screener before drawing up the list of candidates admitted to the next stage at the assessment centre.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/62

---

Action brought on 18 March 2023 — VK v Commission

(Case T-148/23)

(2023/C 179/87)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the following decisions:






  — | decision of 12 May 2022 rejecting the request to transfer contributions under Article 11(2) and (3) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, issued by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements PMO/2 Pensions (Ref: PMO 2, TFT IN, 3426594500), and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the following decisions:

—

decision of 12 May 2022 rejecting the request to transfer contributions under Article 11(2) and (3) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, issued by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements PMO/2 Pensions (Ref: PMO 2, TFT IN, 3426594500), and

| — | decision of the appointing authority of 9 December 2022 rejecting the complaint (No. R/373/22) lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union against the decision of 12 May 2022. |
| --- | --- |

—

decision of the appointing authority of 9 December 2022 rejecting the complaint (No. R/373/22) lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union against the decision of 12 May 2022.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging infringement of the law, in so far as the general implementing provisions of the first paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations do not comply with the limits established in that article. The applicant raises a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU of those implementing provisions as contrary to superior legislation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging infringement of the law, in so far as the general implementing provisions of the first paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations do not comply with the limits established in that article. The applicant raises a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU of those implementing provisions as contrary to superior legislation.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging error of law in the interpretation of the concept of force majeure and of financial rules, in so far as the concept of force majeure is not a legal maxim, but rather an external factor precluding application of specific rules relating to whether a right is time-barred. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging error of law in the interpretation of the concept of force majeure and of financial rules, in so far as the concept of force majeure is not a legal maxim, but rather an external factor precluding application of specific rules relating to whether a right is time-barred.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/62

---

Action brought on 20 March 2023 — MBDA France v Commission

(Case T-154/23)

(2023/C 179/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MBDA France (Le Plessis-Robinson, France) (represented by: F. de Bure and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, on the basis of articles 256 and 263 TFEU, the decision of the Commission of January 10, 2023 rejecting, pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) the applicant’s confirmatory request for access to documents 2022/5127 — Ares(2023)593134 relating to the Call for Proposals EDF-2021-AIRDEF-D on the protection against high-velocity aerial threats launched by the Commission (‘the EATMI Project’) lodged pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (‘the contested decision’), in so far as it refuses to grant the applicant’s full access to the requested documents, with the exception of the redaction of certain personal data, information which could foreseeably actually undermine the protection of public security and of defence and military matters as well as information revealing strategic intentions of the consortium led by the Spanish company Sener Aerospacial Sociedad Anonima (‘the SENER Consortium’) or its members; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, on the basis of articles 256 and 263 TFEU, the decision of the Commission of January 10, 2023 rejecting, pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) the applicant’s confirmatory request for access to documents 2022/5127 — Ares(2023)593134 relating to the Call for Proposals EDF-2021-AIRDEF-D on the protection against high-velocity aerial threats launched by the Commission (‘the EATMI Project’) lodged pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (‘the contested decision’), in so far as it refuses to grant the applicant’s full access to the requested documents, with the exception of the redaction of certain personal data, information which could foreseeably actually undermine the protection of public security and of defence and military matters as well as information revealing strategic intentions of the consortium led by the Spanish company Sener Aerospacial Sociedad Anonima (‘the SENER Consortium’) or its members;

| — | join this application for annulment with case T-614/22, MBDA France v Commission, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

join this application for annulment with case T-614/22, MBDA France v Commission, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In particular, the applicant considers that:






  — | the Commission has failed to demonstrate that the disclosure of the requested documents to MBDA France is likely, specifically and actually, to undermine the protection of public security and of defence and military matters pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In particular, the applicant considers that:

—

the Commission has failed to demonstrate that the disclosure of the requested documents to MBDA France is likely, specifically and actually, to undermine the protection of public security and of defence and military matters pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001;

| — | the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law, as the Commission cannot refuse to disclose the names and functions of the persons involved evaluation committees on the basis of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

—

the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law, as the Commission cannot refuse to disclose the names and functions of the persons involved evaluation committees on the basis of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(2), first and second indents, of Regulation No 1049/2001. In particular, the applicant considers that:






  — | the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in the application of the exemption provided for in Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 as (i) the disclosure of some of the requested documents the disclosure relate to its own proposal in response to the EATMI Project, (ii) it appears also very unlikely that all information contained in the other documents allegedly covered by this exemption is liable to undermine the protection of commercial interests of the members of the SENER Consortium, and, (iii) in any event, the Commission could not refuse to disclose the scores attributed to the SENER Consortium’s proposal; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(2), first and second indents, of Regulation No 1049/2001. In particular, the applicant considers that:

—

the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in the application of the exemption provided for in Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 as (i) the disclosure of some of the requested documents the disclosure relate to its own proposal in response to the EATMI Project, (ii) it appears also very unlikely that all information contained in the other documents allegedly covered by this exemption is liable to undermine the protection of commercial interests of the members of the SENER Consortium, and, (iii) in any event, the Commission could not refuse to disclose the scores attributed to the SENER Consortium’s proposal;

| — | the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in the application of the exemption provided for in Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001, as none of the requested documents contain the Commission’s internal legal position on the legality of the decision which is being appealed in case T-614/22, MBDA France v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in the application of the exemption provided for in Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001, as none of the requested documents contain the Commission’s internal legal position on the legality of the decision which is being appealed in case T-614/22, MBDA France v Commission.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In particular, the applicant submits that:






  — | the Commission fails to offer any explanation as to the reasons for which the requested documents’ disclosure would specifically and actually seriously undermine the Commission’s decision-making process; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In particular, the applicant submits that:

—

the Commission fails to offer any explanation as to the reasons for which the requested documents’ disclosure would specifically and actually seriously undermine the Commission’s decision-making process;

| — | the Commission cannot validly base its refusal on the exception provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the Regulation No 1049/2001 insofar as the procedure to which the requested documents relate is already closed. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission cannot validly base its refusal on the exception provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the Regulation No 1049/2001 insofar as the procedure to which the requested documents relate is already closed.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(6) and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In particular, the applicant shows that by not assessing whether it could grant partial access to the documents requested, the Commission has violated its obligations to grant partial access when possible and to ensure the widest possible access to documents. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(6) and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In particular, the applicant shows that by not assessing whether it could grant partial access to the documents requested, the Commission has violated its obligations to grant partial access when possible and to ensure the widest possible access to documents.

---

(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).

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/64

---

Action brought on 23 March 2023 — Colombani v EEAS

(Case T-158/23)

(2023/C 179/89)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean Marc Colombani (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the applicant’s 2021 annual performance appraisal report of 13 July 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicant’s 2021 annual performance appraisal report of 13 July 2022;

| — | in so far as necessary, in that it supplements the performance appraisal report, annul the decision of 20 December 2022 of the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission rejecting the complaint R/394/2022 lodged by the applicant on 19 August 2022 against his 2021 performance appraisal report; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, in that it supplements the performance appraisal report, annul the decision of 20 December 2022 of the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission rejecting the complaint R/394/2022 lodged by the applicant on 19 August 2022 against his 2021 performance appraisal report;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the rules applicable to the appraisal procedure, infringement of Articles 11a, 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, misuse of powers and infringement of the objectivity and the impartiality that must be attached to the appraisal procedures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the rules applicable to the appraisal procedure, infringement of Articles 11a, 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, misuse of powers and infringement of the objectivity and the impartiality that must be attached to the appraisal procedures;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/64

---

Action brought on 24 March 2023 — VN v Commission

(Case T-159/23)

(2023/C 179/90)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | hold that the present action is admissible and well founded;
  consequently, |
| --- | --- |

—

hold that the present action is admissible and well founded;

consequently,

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 6 July 2022 declaring the applicant fit to work and absent without justification on 10 June 2022, thus leading to a deduction from his salary of one calendar day; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 6 July 2022 declaring the applicant fit to work and absent without justification on 10 June 2022, thus leading to a deduction from his salary of one calendar day;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the Commission’s decision of 14 December 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 16 August 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the Commission’s decision of 14 December 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 16 August 2022;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation in respect of non-material damage suffered by the applicant amounting to two months of pay, including allowances; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation in respect of non-material damage suffered by the applicant amounting to two months of pay, including allowances;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of independence of the medical officer who carried out the consultation on 10 June 2022 and breach of the duty of impartiality. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of independence of the medical officer who carried out the consultation on 10 June 2022 and breach of the duty of impartiality.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and force majeure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and force majeure.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/65

---

Action brought on 24 March 2023 — Fritz Egger and Others v ECHA

(Case T-163/23)

(2023/C 179/91)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Fritz Egger GmbH & Co. OG (St. Johann in Tirol, Austria) and 7 others (represented by: M. Ahlhaus, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision adopted by the defendant on 16 December 2022 and published on 17 January 2023, insofar as it includes melamine (‘the Substance’ or ‘melamine’) in the list of candidate substances for authorisation as Substances of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) in accordance with Article 57 of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (‘REACH’) (‘Contested Decision’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision adopted by the defendant on 16 December 2022 and published on 17 January 2023, insofar as it includes melamine (‘the Substance’ or ‘melamine’) in the list of candidate substances for authorisation as Substances of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) in accordance with Article 57 of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (‘REACH’) (‘Contested Decision’);

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision had breached the principle of good administrative practice. The Contested Decision and the underlying justification for the identification of melamine as SVHC according to Article 57(f) REACH deviates from the established guidance. Due to this deviation, it is not only difficult to identify the specific scientific basis for the conclusion that an equivalent level of concern can be established but the unclear and inconsistent approach as put forward in the Contested Decision and underlying justification does not meet the prerequisites enshrined in Article 57(f) REACH. Insofar, the Contested Decision infringes the principle of good administration due to inconsistency of the underlying administrative behaviour and a breach of legitimate expectations of the applicants regarding the proceeding, the underlying assessment, and the decision-making process. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision had breached the principle of good administrative practice. The Contested Decision and the underlying justification for the identification of melamine as SVHC according to Article 57(f) REACH deviates from the established guidance. Due to this deviation, it is not only difficult to identify the specific scientific basis for the conclusion that an equivalent level of concern can be established but the unclear and inconsistent approach as put forward in the Contested Decision and underlying justification does not meet the prerequisites enshrined in Article 57(f) REACH. Insofar, the Contested Decision infringes the principle of good administration due to inconsistency of the underlying administrative behaviour and a breach of legitimate expectations of the applicants regarding the proceeding, the underlying assessment, and the decision-making process.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to establish, in accordance with the prerequisites enshrined in Article 57(f) REACH, that melamine causes probable serious effects to human health and the environment which give rise to an equivalent level of concern to the effects identified in Article 57(a) to (e) REACH as the Contested Decision is based on effects which are not arising from intrinsic properties of melamine and must thus be disregarded in connection with the identification of melamine as substance of very high concern. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to establish, in accordance with the prerequisites enshrined in Article 57(f) REACH, that melamine causes probable serious effects to human health and the environment which give rise to an equivalent level of concern to the effects identified in Article 57(a) to (e) REACH as the Contested Decision is based on effects which are not arising from intrinsic properties of melamine and must thus be disregarded in connection with the identification of melamine as substance of very high concern.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the breach of Article 57(f) REACH, inasmuch the defendant has adopted the Contested Decision without establishing, on basis of sufficient scientific evidence, that melamine could cause probable serious effect on human health or the environment to an equivalent level of concern to substances with hazard properties referred to in Article 57(a) to (e) REACH and, thus, the Contested Decision is based on a manifest error in assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the breach of Article 57(f) REACH, inasmuch the defendant has adopted the Contested Decision without establishing, on basis of sufficient scientific evidence, that melamine could cause probable serious effect on human health or the environment to an equivalent level of concern to substances with hazard properties referred to in Article 57(a) to (e) REACH and, thus, the Contested Decision is based on a manifest error in assessment.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision infringes the applicants’ right to be heard and the right to comment on new evidence presented only to the Member State Committee. The applicants claim, in essence, that they were not heard on all the factual and legal elements which led to the adoption of the Contested Decision, and the defendant manifestly erred in considering corresponding new evidence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision infringes the applicants’ right to be heard and the right to comment on new evidence presented only to the Member State Committee. The applicants claim, in essence, that they were not heard on all the factual and legal elements which led to the adoption of the Contested Decision, and the defendant manifestly erred in considering corresponding new evidence.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision constitutes a breach of the principle of proportionality as well as the principles of foreseeability, protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty inasmuch as melamine is identified as SVHC and, thus, is under regulatory scrutiny, although melamine is considered a suitable alternative for other substances which are already subject to more severe regulatory measures under REACH. Moreover, the identification of melamine as SVHC cannot be considered an appropriate measure with respect to the overall aim of the SVHC identification as supported by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision constitutes a breach of the principle of proportionality as well as the principles of foreseeability, protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty inasmuch as melamine is identified as SVHC and, thus, is under regulatory scrutiny, although melamine is considered a suitable alternative for other substances which are already subject to more severe regulatory measures under REACH. Moreover, the identification of melamine as SVHC cannot be considered an appropriate measure with respect to the overall aim of the SVHC identification as supported by the defendant.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/66

---

Action brought on 27 March 2023 — Drinks Prod v EUIPO — Wolff and Illg (IGISAN)

(Case T-164/23)

(2023/C 179/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Drinks Prod SRL (Păntășești, Romania) (represented by: I. Speciac, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Siegfried Wolff (Berlin, Germany), Matthias Illg (Berlin)

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 IGISAN — Application for registration No 18 329 332

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2023 in Case R 982/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision rendered by the Board of Appeal in the sense of allowing the appeal filed by the applicant against the decision of the Opposition Division and, consequently, oblige EUIPO to continue the registration proceedings for the trade mark at issue for all requested goods and services in Classes 3 and 5. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision rendered by the Board of Appeal in the sense of allowing the appeal filed by the applicant against the decision of the Opposition Division and, consequently, oblige EUIPO to continue the registration proceedings for the trade mark at issue for all requested goods and services in Classes 3 and 5.

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.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/67

---

Action brought on 28 March 2023 — Arkema France v Commission

(Case T-165/23)

(2023/C 179/93)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Arkema France (Colombes, France) (represented by: S. Dumon-Kappe and D. Todorova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | hold that the present action is admissible and well founded;
  consequently, |
| --- | --- |

—

hold that the present action is admissible and well founded;

consequently,

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111 of 18 January 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111 of 18 January 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia;

| — | in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(1) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union. That plea is divided into three parts.






  — | According to the first part, the defendant, by deciding to pursue the investigation on imports of fatty acids originating in Indonesia despite the withdrawal of the complaint, did not take all the interests of the European Union or the opposition of various European players into account. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(1) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union. That plea is divided into three parts.

—

According to the first part, the defendant, by deciding to pursue the investigation on imports of fatty acids originating in Indonesia despite the withdrawal of the complaint, did not take all the interests of the European Union or the opposition of various European players into account.

| — | According to the second part, the defendant, by deciding to introduce definitive anti-dumping duties applicable to imports of fatty acids originating in Indonesia, committed a manifest error of assessment of the users’ interests. |
| --- | --- |

—

According to the second part, the defendant, by deciding to introduce definitive anti-dumping duties applicable to imports of fatty acids originating in Indonesia, committed a manifest error of assessment of the users’ interests.

| — | According to the third part, the Commission, by refusing to terminate the anti-dumping investigation without imposing measures, breached the general principles of equal treatment and legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

According to the third part, the Commission, by refusing to terminate the anti-dumping investigation without imposing measures, breached the general principles of equal treatment and legitimate expectations.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(1) and Article 3(6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union.






  — | The applicant argues, in that regard, that the defendant overestimated the negative impact on the EU industry of imports of fatty acids originating in Indonesia, which have not caused any material harm to the European industry. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(1) and Article 3(6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union.

—

The applicant argues, in that regard, that the defendant overestimated the negative impact on the EU industry of imports of fatty acids originating in Indonesia, which have not caused any material harm to the European industry.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/68

---

Action brought on 24 March 2023 — Borealis Agrolinz Melamine Deutschland and Cornerstone v ECHA

(Case T-167/23)

(2023/C 179/94)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Borealis Agrolinz Melamine Deutschland GmbH (Lutherstadt Wittenberg, Germany), Cornerstone Chemical Co. (Metairie, Louisiana, United States) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and Z. Romata, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | Annul the decision adopted by the defendant on 16 December 2022 and published on 17 January 2023 insofar as it includes melamine (‘the Substance’ or ‘melamine’) in the list of candidate substances for authorisation as Substances of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (‘REACH’) (‘Contested Decision’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision adopted by the defendant on 16 December 2022 and published on 17 January 2023 insofar as it includes melamine (‘the Substance’ or ‘melamine’) in the list of candidate substances for authorisation as Substances of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (‘REACH’) (‘Contested Decision’);

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has breached Article 57(f) of REACH and manifestly erred in its assessment. The defendant failed to establish, to the standard imposed by Article 57(f) of REACH, that the Substance causes probable serious effects to human health and the environment which give rise to an equivalent level of concern to the effects identified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Article 57 of the REACH Regulation. Specifically, the defendant has committed manifest errors with regard to each of the different aspects of the legal standard established by Article 57(f) of REACH, vitiating the overall conclusion. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has breached Article 57(f) of REACH and manifestly erred in its assessment. The defendant failed to establish, to the standard imposed by Article 57(f) of REACH, that the Substance causes probable serious effects to human health and the environment which give rise to an equivalent level of concern to the effects identified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Article 57 of the REACH Regulation. Specifically, the defendant has committed manifest errors with regard to each of the different aspects of the legal standard established by Article 57(f) of REACH, vitiating the overall conclusion.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed to state reasons in purporting to establish the equivalent level of concern and probable serious effects posed by the Substance. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed to state reasons in purporting to establish the equivalent level of concern and probable serious effects posed by the Substance.

| 3. | Third plea in law, refuting the proportionality of the Contested Decision. According to the applicants, the Contested Decision is not appropriate to meet the objectives pursued by the Authorisation title of REACH, given that the overwhelming majority of uses of the Substance will be exempt from authorisation. Even if the identification of the Substance as an SVHC was pursued as an objective in its own right, there are more appropriate measures to achieve the objective of imposing information requirements about the alleged properties of the Substance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, refuting the proportionality of the Contested Decision. According to the applicants, the Contested Decision is not appropriate to meet the objectives pursued by the Authorisation title of REACH, given that the overwhelming majority of uses of the Substance will be exempt from authorisation. Even if the identification of the Substance as an SVHC was pursued as an objective in its own right, there are more appropriate measures to achieve the objective of imposing information requirements about the alleged properties of the Substance.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, challenging the defendant’s reliance on the precautionary principle to substantiate the conclusion that the Substance would meet the requirements of Article 57(f) of REACH. Article 57(f) is already an expression of the precautionary principle and cannot be used to justify reliance on poorly reliable data or manifestly flawed assumptions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, challenging the defendant’s reliance on the precautionary principle to substantiate the conclusion that the Substance would meet the requirements of Article 57(f) of REACH. Article 57(f) is already an expression of the precautionary principle and cannot be used to justify reliance on poorly reliable data or manifestly flawed assumptions.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicants’ right to be heard was breached during the process leading up to the adoption of the Contested Decision. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicants’ right to be heard was breached during the process leading up to the adoption of the Contested Decision.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted ultra vires and breached Article 59(8) of REACH by adopting the Contested Decision without a unanimous agreement of the ECHA Member State Committee, which is an essential procedural requirement, as four Member States abstained. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted ultra vires and breached Article 59(8) of REACH by adopting the Contested Decision without a unanimous agreement of the ECHA Member State Committee, which is an essential procedural requirement, as four Member States abstained.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the defendant had misused powers by using the SVHC identification process as a means of securing regulatory acceptance of criteria for which the Substance would be a test-case, rather than for the objective provided by the legislator. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the defendant had misused powers by using the SVHC identification process as a means of securing regulatory acceptance of criteria for which the Substance would be a test-case, rather than for the objective provided by the legislator.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/69

---

Action brought on 29 March 2023 — Amstel Brouwerij v EUIPO — Anheuser-Busch (ULTRA)

(Case T-170/23)

(2023/C 179/95)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Amstel Brouwerij BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Cohen Jehoram, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anheuser-Busch LLC (St. Louis, Missouri, 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 figurative mark ULTRA — European Union trade mark No 2 895 258

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 January 2023 in Case R 2088/2021-5

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 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.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/69

---

Action brought on 30 March 2023 — Dendiki v EUIPO — D-Market (hepsiburada)

(Case T-172/23)

(2023/C 179/96)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Dendiki BV (Roosendaal, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Ruyters and A. Klomp, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: D-Market Elektronik Hizmetler ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (Istanbul, Türkiye)

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 hepsiburada — European Union trade mark No 17 151 796

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 January 2023 in Case R 639/2021-4

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, should the other party intervene, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party, should the other party intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/70

---

Action brought on 31 March 2023 — Simpson Performance Products v EUIPO — Freundlieb (BANDIT)

(Case T-173/23)

(2023/C 179/97)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Simpson Performance Products, Inc. (New Braunfels, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Götz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andreas Freundlieb (Berlin, 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 EU word mark BANDIT — Application No 18 179 533

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2023 in Case R 784/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | dismiss EU trade mark application No 18 179 533 BANDIT; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss EU trade mark application No 18 179 533 BANDIT;

in the alternative:

| — | refer the proceedings back to another Board of Appeal of EUIPO for a fresh hearing and decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the proceedings back to another Board of Appeal of EUIPO for a fresh hearing and decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 3(1) and Article 20(3) of the Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 3(1) and Article 20(3) of the Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany);

| — | Infringement of the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/71

---

Action brought on 31 March 2023 — Hong Kong NetEase Interactive Entertainment v EUIPO — Medion (LifeAfter)

(Case T-175/23)

(2023/C 179/98)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hong Kong NetEase Interactive Entertainment Ltd (Sheung Wan, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Medion AG (Essen, 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 word trade mark LifeAfter — Application for registration No 17 992 446

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2022 in Case R 557/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, expressly according the registration of the EU trade mark No 17 992 446; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, expressly according the registration of the EU trade mark No 17 992 446;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervening party, Medion AG to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervening party, Medion AG to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the EUIPO.

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.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/71

---

Action brought on 31 March 2023 — PT Musim Mas v Commission

(Case T-176/23)

(2023/C 179/99)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PT Musim Mas (Medan, Indonesia) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111 of 18 January 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia in its entirety insofar as it concerns the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111 of 18 January 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia in its entirety insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

| — | Order the Commission and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission to bear the costs of these 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 that the Commission violated the principles to state reasons and of good administration by deciding not to terminate the investigation in light of the withdrawal of the complaint. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the principles to state reasons and of good administration by deciding not to terminate the investigation in light of the withdrawal of the complaint.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 21(1) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation by failing to conclude that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 21(1) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation by failing to conclude that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 2(3), 2(6) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation by using an unreasonable and wrongly computed profit margin to construct the normal value of product control numbers (PCNs) sold by the applicant in non-representative quantities on the domestic market. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 2(3), 2(6) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation by using an unreasonable and wrongly computed profit margin to construct the normal value of product control numbers (PCNs) sold by the applicant in non-representative quantities on the domestic market.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by constructing the normal value of five PCNs that were not sold at all by the applicant on the domestic market pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Basic Regulation without having first established whether it was possible to determine the normal value of these five PCNs on the basis of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by constructing the normal value of five PCNs that were not sold at all by the applicant on the domestic market pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Basic Regulation without having first established whether it was possible to determine the normal value of these five PCNs on the basis of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation by imposing an anti-dumping duty which exceeds the dumping margin, as it used an incorrect exchange rate to convert the net invoice value and cost, insurance and freight values of certain transactions of ICOF Europe. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation by imposing an anti-dumping duty which exceeds the dumping margin, as it used an incorrect exchange rate to convert the net invoice value and cost, insurance and freight values of certain transactions of ICOF Europe.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/72

---

Action brought on 3 April 2023 — Lacroix v EUIPO — Xingyu Safety Tech (ADAMAS)

(Case T-177/23)

(2023/C 179/100)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nathalie Lacroix (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca and C. Sotomayor Garcia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Xingyu Safety Tech Co. Ltd (Gaomi, China)

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 trade mark ADAMAS — Application for registration No 18 387 424

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 January 2023 in Case R 2004/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order to alter the contested decision by stating that the EUTM application No 18 387 424 ADAMAS must be granted for ‘sportswear; shoes’ in class 25 due to the lack of likelihood of confusion between the trademarks under comparison, after giving due consideration of the relevant circumstances of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

order to alter the contested decision by stating that the EUTM application No 18 387 424 ADAMAS must be granted for ‘sportswear; shoes’ in class 25 due to the lack of likelihood of confusion between the trademarks under comparison, after giving due consideration of the relevant circumstances of the case;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

alternatively, should the Court refuse the first form of order, the applicant claims that Court should:

| — | raise a decision ordering the annulment of the contested decision to the extent that the application No 18 387 424 is refused protection of class 25 goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

raise a decision ordering the annulment of the contested decision to the extent that the application No 18 387 424 is refused protection of class 25 goods;

| — | 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.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/73

---

Action brought on 5 April 2023 — FFPE Council section v Council

(Case T-179/23)

(2023/C 179/101)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Civil Service Federation Council section (FFPE Council section) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare this action admissible and well founded;
  and consequently, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare this action admissible and well founded;

and consequently,

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay token damages of EUR 1 for the non-material damage allegedly suffered; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay token damages of EUR 1 for the non-material damage allegedly suffered; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment directed against the Council’s note of 3 April 2023 informing the applicant of the findings and consequences of the verification procedure opened against it pursuant to the agreement of 28 March 2006 concluded between the Council of the European Union and the trade unions or professional organisations of the staff of the General Secretariat of the Council (‘the agreement’), the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the agreement and the engagement letter. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the agreement and the engagement letter.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the spirit of sincere cooperation resulting from the agreement, the principle of good administration, the principle of proportionality and the principle of performance in good faith of agreements. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the spirit of sincere cooperation resulting from the agreement, the principle of good administration, the principle of proportionality and the principle of performance in good faith of agreements.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging violation of the fundamental right to freedom of association. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of the fundamental right to freedom of association.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/74

---

Action brought on 5 April 2023 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Samar’t Pharma (Bl blue pigment)

(Case T-180/23)

(2023/C 179/102)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and S. Vandezande, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Samar’t Pharma, SL (Vilamalla, Spain)

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 Bl blue pigment — Application for registration No 18 338 656

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2023 in Case R 1102/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

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.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/74

---

Action brought on 10 April 2023 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM)

(Case T-181/23)

(2023/C 179/103)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

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 JUVÉDERM — European Union trade mark No 5 807 169

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2023 in Case R 904/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment at every stage of the action for invalidation, including the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO and the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment at every stage of the action for invalidation, including the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO and the Court.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 95(1), 97(1) and 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 95(1), 97(1) and 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/75

---

Action brought on 11 April 2023 — Puma v EUIPO — Société d’équipements de boulangerie pâtisserie (BERTRAND PUMA La griffe boulangère)

(Case T-184/23)

(2023/C 179/104)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société d’équipements de boulangerie pâtisserie (Portes-Lès-Valence, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark BERTRAND PUMA La griffe boulangère — Application for registration No 18 046 533

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2023 in Case R 2420/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

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.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/76

---

Action brought on 11 April 2023 — PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo and PT Nubika Jaya v Commission

(Case T-187/23)

(2023/C 179/105)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo (Medan, Indonesia), PT Nubika Jaya (Medan, Indonesia) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111 of 18 January 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia (1), and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111 of 18 January 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia (1), and

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the applicants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘basic Regulation’) by rejecting the applicants’ request for individual dumping margin examination. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘basic Regulation’) by rejecting the applicants’ request for individual dumping margin examination.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 3(2), 9(1), 9(2), 9(4) and 21(1) of basic Regulation, as well as Articles 5.7 and 5.8 of WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by continuing the investigation and imposing duties despite the withdrawal of the complaint. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 3(2), 9(1), 9(2), 9(4) and 21(1) of basic Regulation, as well as Articles 5.7 and 5.8 of WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by continuing the investigation and imposing duties despite the withdrawal of the complaint.

---

(1)  JO 2023, L 18, p. 1.

---

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/76

---

Order of the General Court of 28 March 2023 — Félix v Commission

(Case T-784/21) (1)

(2023/C 179/106)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---