# Official Journal C 88/15 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 88 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6415 March 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 88

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6415 March 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2021/C 88/01 | 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

2021/C 88/01

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 |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2021/C 88/02 | Decision of the Court of Justice of 2 February 2021 on official holidays and judicial vacations | 2 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 88/03 | Decision of the General Court of 10 February 2021 on judicial vacations | 4 |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2021/C 88/04 | Case C-595/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2021 — The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v European Commission, Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Attributability of unlawful conduct of one company to another company — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence — Entity controlling 100 % of the voting rights associated with the shares of another company) | 5 |
| 2021/C 88/05 | Case C-764/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Ayuntamiento de Pamplona v Orange España SAU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Authorisation of electronic communications networks and services — Municipal charge for the occupation or use of public land — Directive 2002/20/EC — Application to undertakings providing fixed telephony and Internet access services — Concepts of electronic communications network and of electronic communications services — Article 12 — Administrative charges — Article 13 — Fees for rights of use and rights to install facilities — Scope — Limitations on the Member States’ power to impose fees) | 6 |
| 2021/C 88/06 | Case C-16/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie — Poland) — VL v Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and (b) — Concept of discrimination — Direct discrimination — Indirect discrimination — Discrimination on grounds of disability — Difference in treatment within a group of workers with disabilities — Grant of an allowance to workers with disabilities who have submitted disability certificates after a date chosen by the employer — Exclusion of workers with disabilities who have submitted their certificates before that date) | 6 |
| 2021/C 88/07 | Joined Cases C-229/19 and C-289/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 January 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, Gerechtshof Den Haag — Netherlands) — Dexia Nederland BV v XXX (C-229/19), Z (C-289/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Articles 3(1), 4(1) and 6(1) — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Term fixing in advance the creditor’s potential advantage in the event of termination of the contract — Significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract — Date on which the imbalance must be assessed — Finding that a term is unfair — Consequences — Replacement of an unfair term with a supplementary provision of national law) | 7 |
| 2021/C 88/08 | Case C-361/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — De Ruiter vof v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Support scheme for farmers — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 97(1) and Article 99(1) — Direct payments — Reductions and exclusions in the event of non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules — Determination of the year to be taken into account in order to calculate the percentage reduction — Proportionate, effective and dissuasive penalties — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 — Article 73(4), first subparagraph, point (a)) | 8 |
| 2021/C 88/09 | Joined Cases C-422/19 and C-423/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 January 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Johannes Dietrich (C-422/19), Norbert Häring (C-423/19) v Hessischer Rundfunk (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Economic and monetary policy — Article 2(1) and Article 3(1)(c) TFEU — Monetary policy — Exclusive competence of the European Union — Article 128(1) TFEU — Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank — Article 16, first paragraph — Concept of legal tender — Effects — Obligation to accept euro banknotes — Regulation (EC) No 974/98 — Whether possible for Member States to impose limitations on payments by means of banknotes and coins denominated in euro — Conditions — Regional legislation precluding the payment in cash of a radio and television licence fee to a regional public broadcasting body) | 9 |
| 2021/C 88/10 | Case C-466/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 January 2021 — Qualcomm Inc., Qualcomm Europe Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market for UMTS-compliant baseband chipsets — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(3) — Decision to request information — Necessity of the information requested — Proportionality — Burden of proof — Self-incrimination) | 10 |
| 2021/C 88/11 | Case C-649/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2012/13/EU — Articles 4 to 7 — Letters of Rights set out in Annexes I and II — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Letter of Rights on arrest — Right to be informed of the accusation — Right of access to the materials of the case — Person arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant in the executing Member State) | 10 |
| 2021/C 88/12 | Case C-787/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 January 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Application to all types of clients — National legislation excluding travel services that are provided to taxable persons who use those services for their business — Article 73 — Taxable amount — Determination of a taxable amount on a flat-rate basis for groups of services or for all services provided during the taxable period — Incompatibility) | 11 |
| 2021/C 88/13 | Case C-266/20 P: Appeal brought on 15 June 2020 by ZU against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 31 March 2020 in Case T-499/19, ZU v EEAS | 11 |
| 2021/C 88/14 | Case C-390/20 P: Appeal brought on 17 August 2020 by HZ, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of etc-gaming GmbH, and OX, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH, against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2020 in Case T-803/19, etc-gaming GmbH and Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH v European Commission | 12 |
| 2021/C 88/15 | Case C-404/20 P: Appeal brought on 25 August 2020 by Brands Up OÜ against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2020 in Case T-651/19 Brands Up OÜ v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 12 |
| 2021/C 88/16 | Case C-652/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 2 December 2020 — HW, ZF, MZ v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG | 12 |
| 2021/C 88/17 | Case C-657/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Cazalla de la Sierra (Spain) lodged on 4 December 2020 — Caixabank, S.A. v ZN, SD, AH | 13 |
| 2021/C 88/18 | Case C-669/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 December 2020 — Veridos GmbH v Ministar na vatreshnite raboti na Republika Bulgaria, Mühlbauer ID Services GmbH — S&T | 13 |
| 2021/C 88/19 | Case C-689/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 December 2020 — Banka DSK EAD v RP | 14 |
| 2021/C 88/20 | Case C-710/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava I (Slovakia) lodged on 29 December 2020 — Criminal proceedings against A.M. | 16 |
| 2021/C 88/21 | Case C-711/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 31 December 2020 — TanQuid Polska Sp. z o. o. v Generální ředitelství cel | 16 |
| 2021/C 88/22 | Case C-720/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Cottbus (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2020 — RO, legally represented v Bundesrepublik Deutschland | 17 |
| 2021/C 88/23 | Case C-721/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2020 — DB Station & Service AG v ODEG Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn GmbH | 18 |
| 2021/C 88/24 | Case C-1/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 January 2021 — MC v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite | 18 |
| 2021/C 88/25 | Case C-7/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bleiburg (Austria) lodged on 8 January 2021 — LKW WALTER Internationale Transportorganisation AG v CB and Others | 19 |
| 2021/C 88/26 | Case C-8/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Germanwings GmbH v KV | 20 |
| 2021/C 88/27 | Case C-9/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — AX v Deutsche Lufthansa AG | 20 |
| 2021/C 88/28 | Case C-10/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v TZ | 21 |
| 2021/C 88/29 | Case C-11/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v IY and TP | 21 |
| 2021/C 88/30 | Case C-12/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v FL | 22 |
| 2021/C 88/31 | Case C-17/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 11 January 2021 — Sabiedrisko pakalpojumu regulēšanas komisija, Ekonomikas ministrija, Finanšu ministrija v SIA GM | 22 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 88/32 | Case T-699/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Poland v Commission (Environment — Directive 2010/75/EU — Industrial emissions — Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 — Large combustion plants — Best available techniques (BAT) conclusions — Article 16(4) and (5) TEU — Article 3(2) and (3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions — Application of the law ratione temporis — Comitology) | 25 |
| 2021/C 88/33 | Case T-691/18: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — KPN v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Netherlands market for television services and telecommunications services — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement — Relevant market — Vertical effects — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons) | 26 |
| 2021/C 88/34 | Case T-9/19: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — ClientEarth v EIB (Environment — Financing of a biomass power generation plant in Galicia — Resolution of the Board of Directors of the EIB approving the financing — Access to justice in environmental matters — Articles 9 and 10 of the Aarhus Convention — Articles 10 to 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Request for an internal review — Refusal of the request as inadmissible — Action for annulment — Admissibility of a ground of defence — Obligation to state reasons — Concept of an act adopted under environmental law — Concept of an act having a legally binding and external effect) | 26 |
| 2021/C 88/35 | Case T-382/19: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Turk Hava Yollari v EUIPO — Sky (skylife) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark skylife — Earlier EU word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 27 |
| 2021/C 88/36 | Case T-817/19: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO — OmniVision (Hydrovision) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Hydrovision — Earlier EU word mark Hylo-Vision — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 28 |
| 2021/C 88/37 | Case T-829/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA — Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 28 |
| 2021/C 88/38 | Case T-830/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA — Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 29 |
| 2021/C 88/39 | Case T-831/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA — Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 30 |
| 2021/C 88/40 | Case T-287/20: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (EGGY FOOD) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark EGGY FOOD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 30 |
| 2021/C 88/41 | Case T-734/19: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Member of Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Request for an urgent initiative to confirm the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility) | 31 |
| 2021/C 88/42 | Case T-533/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 January 2021 — Green Power Technologies v Commission and ECSEL Joint Undertaking (Interim measures — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Reimbursement of sums paid — Application for interim measures — No urgency) | 32 |
| 2021/C 88/43 | Case T-580/20: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — KC v Commission (Action for damages — State aid — Complaint — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 32 |
| 2021/C 88/44 | Case T-761/20: Action brought on 20 December 2020 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB | 33 |
| 2021/C 88/45 | Case T-765/20: Action brought on 31 December 2020 — The Floow v Commission | 33 |
| 2021/C 88/46 | Case T-005/21: Action brought on 7 January 2021 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v EEA | 34 |
| 2021/C 88/47 | Case T-26/21: Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT) | 35 |
| 2021/C 88/48 | Case T-27/21: Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT) | 36 |
| 2021/C 88/49 | Case T-28/21: Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT) | 37 |
| 2021/C 88/50 | Case T-32/21: Action brought on 22 January 2021 — Daw v EUIPO (Muresko) | 37 |
| 2021/C 88/51 | Case T-41/21: Action brought on 26 January 2021 — QD v Parliament | 38 |
| 2021/C 88/52 | Case T-45/21: Action brought on 27 January 2021 — Ciano Trading & Services CT & S and Others v Commission | 39 |
| 2021/C 88/53 | Case T-46/21: Action brought on 26 January 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Yajun (PREMILITY) | 40 |
| 2021/C 88/54 | Case T-47/21: Action brought on 27 January 2021 — Cepewa v EUIPO — Out of the blue (LIEBLINGSMENSCH) | 41 |
| 2021/C 88/55 | Case T-48/21: Action brought on 27 January 2021– Cepewa v EUIPO — Out of the blue (Lieblingsmensch) | 41 |
| 2021/C 88/56 | Case T-54/21: Action brought on 29 January 2021 — OHB System v Commission | 42 |
| 2021/C 88/57 | Case T-57/21: Action brought on 27 January 2021 — Hungary v Commission | 43 |
| 2021/C 88/58 | Case T-66/21: Action brought on 1 February 2021 — Precisis v EUIPO — Easee (EASEE) | 44 |
| 2021/C 88/59 | Case T-67/21: Action brought on 1 February 2021 — ultra air v EUIPO — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international) | 45 |
| 2021/C 88/60 | Case T-64/19: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2021 — ECSEL Joint Undertaking v Personal Health Institute International | 45 |
| 2021/C 88/61 | Case T-545/19: Order of the General Court of 28 January 2021 — Global Steel Wire and Others v Commission | 46 |
| 2021/C 88/62 | Case T-16/20: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Hub Culture v EUIPO — PayPal (VEN) | 46 |
| 2021/C 88/63 | Case T-166/20: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — JD v EIB | 46 |
| 2021/C 88/64 | Case T-478/20: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Bigben Connected v EUIPO — Forsee Power (FORCE POWER) | 46 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Court of Justice

2021/C 88/02

Decision of the Court of Justice of 2 February 2021 on official holidays and judicial vacations

2

General Court

2021/C 88/03

Decision of the General Court of 10 February 2021 on judicial vacations

4

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2021/C 88/04

Case C-595/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2021 — The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v European Commission, Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Attributability of unlawful conduct of one company to another company — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence — Entity controlling 100 % of the voting rights associated with the shares of another company)

5

2021/C 88/05

Case C-764/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Ayuntamiento de Pamplona v Orange España SAU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Authorisation of electronic communications networks and services — Municipal charge for the occupation or use of public land — Directive 2002/20/EC — Application to undertakings providing fixed telephony and Internet access services — Concepts of electronic communications network and of electronic communications services — Article 12 — Administrative charges — Article 13 — Fees for rights of use and rights to install facilities — Scope — Limitations on the Member States’ power to impose fees)

6

2021/C 88/06

Case C-16/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie — Poland) — VL v Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and (b) — Concept of discrimination — Direct discrimination — Indirect discrimination — Discrimination on grounds of disability — Difference in treatment within a group of workers with disabilities — Grant of an allowance to workers with disabilities who have submitted disability certificates after a date chosen by the employer — Exclusion of workers with disabilities who have submitted their certificates before that date)

6

2021/C 88/07

Joined Cases C-229/19 and C-289/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 January 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, Gerechtshof Den Haag — Netherlands) — Dexia Nederland BV v XXX (C-229/19), Z (C-289/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Articles 3(1), 4(1) and 6(1) — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Term fixing in advance the creditor’s potential advantage in the event of termination of the contract — Significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract — Date on which the imbalance must be assessed — Finding that a term is unfair — Consequences — Replacement of an unfair term with a supplementary provision of national law)

7

2021/C 88/08

Case C-361/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — De Ruiter vof v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Support scheme for farmers — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 97(1) and Article 99(1) — Direct payments — Reductions and exclusions in the event of non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules — Determination of the year to be taken into account in order to calculate the percentage reduction — Proportionate, effective and dissuasive penalties — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 — Article 73(4), first subparagraph, point (a))

8

2021/C 88/09

Joined Cases C-422/19 and C-423/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 January 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Johannes Dietrich (C-422/19), Norbert Häring (C-423/19) v Hessischer Rundfunk (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Economic and monetary policy — Article 2(1) and Article 3(1)(c) TFEU — Monetary policy — Exclusive competence of the European Union — Article 128(1) TFEU — Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank — Article 16, first paragraph — Concept of legal tender — Effects — Obligation to accept euro banknotes — Regulation (EC) No 974/98 — Whether possible for Member States to impose limitations on payments by means of banknotes and coins denominated in euro — Conditions — Regional legislation precluding the payment in cash of a radio and television licence fee to a regional public broadcasting body)

9

2021/C 88/10

Case C-466/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 January 2021 — Qualcomm Inc., Qualcomm Europe Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market for UMTS-compliant baseband chipsets — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(3) — Decision to request information — Necessity of the information requested — Proportionality — Burden of proof — Self-incrimination)

10

2021/C 88/11

Case C-649/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2012/13/EU — Articles 4 to 7 — Letters of Rights set out in Annexes I and II — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Letter of Rights on arrest — Right to be informed of the accusation — Right of access to the materials of the case — Person arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant in the executing Member State)

10

2021/C 88/12

Case C-787/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 January 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Application to all types of clients — National legislation excluding travel services that are provided to taxable persons who use those services for their business — Article 73 — Taxable amount — Determination of a taxable amount on a flat-rate basis for groups of services or for all services provided during the taxable period — Incompatibility)

11

2021/C 88/13

Case C-266/20 P: Appeal brought on 15 June 2020 by ZU against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 31 March 2020 in Case T-499/19, ZU v EEAS

11

2021/C 88/14

Case C-390/20 P: Appeal brought on 17 August 2020 by HZ, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of etc-gaming GmbH, and OX, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH, against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2020 in Case T-803/19, etc-gaming GmbH and Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH v European Commission

12

2021/C 88/15

Case C-404/20 P: Appeal brought on 25 August 2020 by Brands Up OÜ against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2020 in Case T-651/19 Brands Up OÜ v European Union Intellectual Property Office

12

2021/C 88/16

Case C-652/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 2 December 2020 — HW, ZF, MZ v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG

12

2021/C 88/17

Case C-657/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Cazalla de la Sierra (Spain) lodged on 4 December 2020 — Caixabank, S.A. v ZN, SD, AH

13

2021/C 88/18

Case C-669/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 December 2020 — Veridos GmbH v Ministar na vatreshnite raboti na Republika Bulgaria, Mühlbauer ID Services GmbH — S&T

13

2021/C 88/19

Case C-689/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 December 2020 — Banka DSK EAD v RP

14

2021/C 88/20

Case C-710/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava I (Slovakia) lodged on 29 December 2020 — Criminal proceedings against A.M.

16

2021/C 88/21

Case C-711/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 31 December 2020 — TanQuid Polska Sp. z o. o. v Generální ředitelství cel

16

2021/C 88/22

Case C-720/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Cottbus (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2020 — RO, legally represented v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

17

2021/C 88/23

Case C-721/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2020 — DB Station & Service AG v ODEG Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn GmbH

18

2021/C 88/24

Case C-1/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 January 2021 — MC v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

18

2021/C 88/25

Case C-7/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bleiburg (Austria) lodged on 8 January 2021 — LKW WALTER Internationale Transportorganisation AG v CB and Others

19

2021/C 88/26

Case C-8/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Germanwings GmbH v KV

20

2021/C 88/27

Case C-9/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — AX v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

20

2021/C 88/28

Case C-10/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v TZ

21

2021/C 88/29

Case C-11/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v IY and TP

21

2021/C 88/30

Case C-12/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v FL

22

2021/C 88/31

Case C-17/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 11 January 2021 — Sabiedrisko pakalpojumu regulēšanas komisija, Ekonomikas ministrija, Finanšu ministrija v SIA GM

22

General Court

2021/C 88/32

Case T-699/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Poland v Commission (Environment — Directive 2010/75/EU — Industrial emissions — Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 — Large combustion plants — Best available techniques (BAT) conclusions — Article 16(4) and (5) TEU — Article 3(2) and (3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions — Application of the law ratione temporis — Comitology)

25

2021/C 88/33

Case T-691/18: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — KPN v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Netherlands market for television services and telecommunications services — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement — Relevant market — Vertical effects — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons)

26

2021/C 88/34

Case T-9/19: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — ClientEarth v EIB (Environment — Financing of a biomass power generation plant in Galicia — Resolution of the Board of Directors of the EIB approving the financing — Access to justice in environmental matters — Articles 9 and 10 of the Aarhus Convention — Articles 10 to 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Request for an internal review — Refusal of the request as inadmissible — Action for annulment — Admissibility of a ground of defence — Obligation to state reasons — Concept of an act adopted under environmental law — Concept of an act having a legally binding and external effect)

26

2021/C 88/35

Case T-382/19: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Turk Hava Yollari v EUIPO — Sky (skylife) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark skylife — Earlier EU word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

27

2021/C 88/36

Case T-817/19: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO — OmniVision (Hydrovision) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Hydrovision — Earlier EU word mark Hylo-Vision — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

28

2021/C 88/37

Case T-829/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA — Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

28

2021/C 88/38

Case T-830/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA — Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

29

2021/C 88/39

Case T-831/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA — Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

30

2021/C 88/40

Case T-287/20: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (EGGY FOOD) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark EGGY FOOD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

30

2021/C 88/41

Case T-734/19: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Member of Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Request for an urgent initiative to confirm the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

31

2021/C 88/42

Case T-533/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 January 2021 — Green Power Technologies v Commission and ECSEL Joint Undertaking (Interim measures — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Reimbursement of sums paid — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

32

2021/C 88/43

Case T-580/20: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — KC v Commission (Action for damages — State aid — Complaint — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

32

2021/C 88/44

Case T-761/20: Action brought on 20 December 2020 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB

33

2021/C 88/45

Case T-765/20: Action brought on 31 December 2020 — The Floow v Commission

33

2021/C 88/46

Case T-005/21: Action brought on 7 January 2021 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v EEA

34

2021/C 88/47

Case T-26/21: Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)

35

2021/C 88/48

Case T-27/21: Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)

36

2021/C 88/49

Case T-28/21: Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)

37

2021/C 88/50

Case T-32/21: Action brought on 22 January 2021 — Daw v EUIPO (Muresko)

37

2021/C 88/51

Case T-41/21: Action brought on 26 January 2021 — QD v Parliament

38

2021/C 88/52

Case T-45/21: Action brought on 27 January 2021 — Ciano Trading & Services CT & S and Others v Commission

39

2021/C 88/53

Case T-46/21: Action brought on 26 January 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Yajun (PREMILITY)

40

2021/C 88/54

Case T-47/21: Action brought on 27 January 2021 — Cepewa v EUIPO — Out of the blue (LIEBLINGSMENSCH)

41

2021/C 88/55

Case T-48/21: Action brought on 27 January 2021– Cepewa v EUIPO — Out of the blue (Lieblingsmensch)

41

2021/C 88/56

Case T-54/21: Action brought on 29 January 2021 — OHB System v Commission

42

2021/C 88/57

Case T-57/21: Action brought on 27 January 2021 — Hungary v Commission

43

2021/C 88/58

Case T-66/21: Action brought on 1 February 2021 — Precisis v EUIPO — Easee (EASEE)

44

2021/C 88/59

Case T-67/21: Action brought on 1 February 2021 — ultra air v EUIPO — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international)

45

2021/C 88/60

Case T-64/19: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2021 — ECSEL Joint Undertaking v Personal Health Institute International

45

2021/C 88/61

Case T-545/19: Order of the General Court of 28 January 2021 — Global Steel Wire and Others v Commission

46

2021/C 88/62

Case T-16/20: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Hub Culture v EUIPO — PayPal (VEN)

46

2021/C 88/63

Case T-166/20: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — JD v EIB

46

2021/C 88/64

Case T-478/20: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Bigben Connected v EUIPO — Forsee Power (FORCE POWER)

46

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/1

---

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

(2021/C 88/01)

Last publication

OJ C 79, 8.3.2021

Past publications

OJ C 72, 1.3.2021

OJ C 62, 22.2.2021

OJ C 53, 15.2.2021

OJ C 44, 8.2.2021

OJ C 35, 1.2.2021

OJ C 28, 25.1.2021

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Court of Justice

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/2

---

DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

of 2 February 2021

on official holidays and judicial vacations

(2021/C 88/02)

THE COURT

having regard to Article 24(2), (4) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure,

whereas it is necessary, pursuant to that provision, to establish the list of the official holidays and to determine the dates of judicial vacations,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The list of official holidays within the meaning of Article 24(4) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure is established as follows:

| — | New Year’s Day, |
| --- | --- |

—

New Year’s Day,

| — | Easter Monday, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter Monday,

| — | 1 May, |
| --- | --- |

—

1 May,

| — | 9 May, |
| --- | --- |

—

9 May,

| — | Ascension, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ascension,

| — | Whit Monday, |
| --- | --- |

—

Whit Monday,

| — | 23 June, |
| --- | --- |

—

23 June,

| — | 15 August, |
| --- | --- |

—

15 August,

| — | 1 November, |
| --- | --- |

—

1 November,

| — | 25 December, |
| --- | --- |

—

25 December,

| — | 26 December. |
| --- | --- |

—

26 December.

Article 2

For the period from 1 November 2021 to 31 October 2022, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 24(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:

| — | Christmas 2021: from Monday 20 December 2021 to Sunday 9 January 2022 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Christmas 2021: from Monday 20 December 2021 to Sunday 9 January 2022 inclusive,

| — | Easter 2022: from Monday 11 April 2022 to Sunday 24 April 2022 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter 2022: from Monday 11 April 2022 to Sunday 24 April 2022 inclusive,

| — | Summer 2022: from Saturday 16 July 2022 to Wednesday 31 August 2022 inclusive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Summer 2022: from Saturday 16 July 2022 to Wednesday 31 August 2022 inclusive.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Luxembourg, 2 February 2021.

Registrar

A. CALOT ESCOBAR

President

K. LENAERTS

---

General Court

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/4

---

DECISION OF THE GENERAL COURT

of 10 February 2021

on judicial vacations

(2021/C 88/03)

THE GENERAL COURT

Having regard to Article 41(2) of the Rules of Procedure,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the judicial year beginning on 1 September 2021, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 41(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:

| — | Christmas 2021: from Monday 20 December 2021 to Sunday 9 January 2022 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Christmas 2021: from Monday 20 December 2021 to Sunday 9 January 2022 inclusive,

| — | Easter 2022: from Monday 11 April 2022 to Sunday 24 April 2022 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter 2022: from Monday 11 April 2022 to Sunday 24 April 2022 inclusive,

| — | Summer 2022: from Saturday 16 July 2022 to Wednesday 31 August 2022 inclusive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Summer 2022: from Saturday 16 July 2022 to Wednesday 31 August 2022 inclusive.

Article 2

This decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Luxembourg, 10 February 2021.

Registrar

E. COULON

President

M. VAN DER WOUDE

---

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2021 — The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v European Commission, Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl

(Case C-595/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Attributability of unlawful conduct of one company to another company - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence - Entity controlling 100 % of the voting rights associated with the shares of another company)

(2021/C 88/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (represented by: A. Mangiaracina, avvocatessa, and J. Koponen, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, C. Sjödin, T. Vecchi and J. Norris, acting as Agents), Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (represented by: C. Tesauro and L. Armati, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | Orders Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Ayuntamiento de Pamplona v Orange España SAU

(Case C-764/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Authorisation of electronic communications networks and services - Municipal charge for the occupation or use of public land - Directive 2002/20/EC - Application to undertakings providing fixed telephony and Internet access services - Concepts of ‘electronic communications network’ and of ‘electronic communications services’ - Article 12 - Administrative charges - Article 13 - Fees for rights of use and rights to install facilities - Scope - Limitations on the Member States’ power to impose fees)

(2021/C 88/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Pamplona

Defendant: Orange España SAU

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as applying also to undertakings providing fixed telephony and Internet access services; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as applying also to undertakings providing fixed telephony and Internet access services;

| 2. | Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20, as amended by Directive 2009/140, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes, on undertakings which are the proprietors of infrastructure or networks necessary for electronic communications and which use them in order to provide fixed telephony and Internet access services, a charge the amount of which is determined exclusively on the basis of the annual gross income obtained by those undertakings on the territory of the Member State concerned. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20, as amended by Directive 2009/140, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes, on undertakings which are the proprietors of infrastructure or networks necessary for electronic communications and which use them in order to provide fixed telephony and Internet access services, a charge the amount of which is determined exclusively on the basis of the annual gross income obtained by those undertakings on the territory of the Member State concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie — Poland) — VL v Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie

(Case C-16/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and (b) - ‘Concept of discrimination’ - Direct discrimination - Indirect discrimination - Discrimination on grounds of disability - Difference in treatment within a group of workers with disabilities - Grant of an allowance to workers with disabilities who have submitted disability certificates after a date chosen by the employer - Exclusion of workers with disabilities who have submitted their certificates before that date)

(2021/C 88/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: VL

Defendant and respondent: Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that:

| — | the practice adopted by an employer and consisting in the payment of an allowance to workers with disabilities who have submitted their disability certificates after a date chosen by that employer, and not to workers with disabilities who have submitted those certificates before that date, may constitute direct discrimination if it is established that that practice is based on a criterion that is inextricably linked to disability, inasmuch as it is such as to make it impossible for a clearly identified group of workers, consisting of all the workers with disabilities whose disabled status was necessarily known to the employer when that practice was introduced, to satisfy that temporal condition; |
| --- | --- |

—

the practice adopted by an employer and consisting in the payment of an allowance to workers with disabilities who have submitted their disability certificates after a date chosen by that employer, and not to workers with disabilities who have submitted those certificates before that date, may constitute direct discrimination if it is established that that practice is based on a criterion that is inextricably linked to disability, inasmuch as it is such as to make it impossible for a clearly identified group of workers, consisting of all the workers with disabilities whose disabled status was necessarily known to the employer when that practice was introduced, to satisfy that temporal condition;

| — | that practice, although apparently neutral, may constitute discrimination indirectly based on disability if it is established that, without being objectively justified by a legitimate aim and without the means of achieving that aim being appropriate and necessary, it puts workers with disabilities at a particular disadvantage depending on the nature of their disabilities, including whether they are visible or require reasonable adjustments to be made to working conditions. |
| --- | --- |

—

that practice, although apparently neutral, may constitute discrimination indirectly based on disability if it is established that, without being objectively justified by a legitimate aim and without the means of achieving that aim being appropriate and necessary, it puts workers with disabilities at a particular disadvantage depending on the nature of their disabilities, including whether they are visible or require reasonable adjustments to be made to working conditions.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 January 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, Gerechtshof Den Haag — Netherlands) — Dexia Nederland BV v XXX (C-229/19), Z (C-289/19)

(Joined Cases C-229/19 and C-289/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Articles 3(1), 4(1) and 6(1) - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Term fixing in advance the creditor’s potential advantage in the event of termination of the contract - Significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract - Date on which the imbalance must be assessed - Finding that a term is unfair - Consequences - Replacement of an unfair term with a supplementary provision of national law)

(2021/C 88/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, Gerechtshof Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dexia Nederland BV

Defendants: XXX (C-229/19), Z (C-289/19)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a term in a risk-weighted contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, such as share leasing agreements, must be regarded as unfair, since, having regard to the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the contract in question and by reference to the date of its conclusion, that term may create a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties during the performance of the contract, even though that imbalance could occur only if certain circumstances were to arise and, in other circumstances, that term could even benefit the consumer. In those circumstances, it is for the referring court to ascertain, in the light of the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract, whether a term fixing in advance the advantage which the seller or supplier is to enjoy in the event of premature termination of the contract was, from the time that contract was concluded, liable to create such an imbalance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a term in a risk-weighted contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, such as share leasing agreements, must be regarded as unfair, since, having regard to the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the contract in question and by reference to the date of its conclusion, that term may create a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties during the performance of the contract, even though that imbalance could occur only if certain circumstances were to arise and, in other circumstances, that term could even benefit the consumer. In those circumstances, it is for the referring court to ascertain, in the light of the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract, whether a term fixing in advance the advantage which the seller or supplier is to enjoy in the event of premature termination of the contract was, from the time that contract was concluded, liable to create such an imbalance.

| 2. | The provisions of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a seller or supplier which has imposed on a consumer a term declared unfair and, consequently, void by the national court cannot claim the statutory compensation provided for by a supplementary provision of national law which would have been applicable in the absence of that term where the contract is capable of continuing in existence without that term. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The provisions of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a seller or supplier which has imposed on a consumer a term declared unfair and, consequently, void by the national court cannot claim the statutory compensation provided for by a supplementary provision of national law which would have been applicable in the absence of that term where the contract is capable of continuing in existence without that term.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — De Ruiter vof v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-361/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Support scheme for farmers - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 97(1) and Article 99(1) - Direct payments - Reductions and exclusions in the event of non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules - Determination of the year to be taken into account in order to calculate the percentage reduction - Proportionate, effective and dissuasive penalties - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 - Article 73(4), first subparagraph, point (a))

(2021/C 88/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: De Ruiter vof

Defendants: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 97(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 99(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, and Article 73(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation No 1306/2013 with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance must be interpreted as meaning that reductions of direct payments due to non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules must be calculated on the basis of the payments granted or to be granted in the year in which such non-compliance occurred.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 January 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Johannes Dietrich (C-422/19), Norbert Häring (C-423/19) v Hessischer Rundfunk

(Joined Cases C-422/19 and C-423/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Economic and monetary policy - Article 2(1) and Article 3(1)(c) TFEU - Monetary policy - Exclusive competence of the European Union - Article 128(1) TFEU - Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank - Article 16, first paragraph - Concept of ‘legal tender’ - Effects - Obligation to accept euro banknotes - Regulation (EC) No 974/98 - Whether possible for Member States to impose limitations on payments by means of banknotes and coins denominated in euro - Conditions - Regional legislation precluding the payment in cash of a radio and television licence fee to a regional public broadcasting body)

(2021/C 88/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Johannes Dietrich (C-422/19), Norbert Häring (C-423/19)

Defendant: Hessischer Rundfunk

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(c), Article 128(1) and Article 133 TFEU, and with the third sentence of the first paragraph of Article 16 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, must be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of any exercise by the European Union of its exclusive competence in the area of monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro, it precludes a Member State from adopting a provision which, in the light of its objective and its content, establishes legal rules governing the status of legal tender of euro banknotes. It does not, however, preclude a Member State from adopting, in the exercise of a competence that is the Member State’s own, such as the organisation of its public administration, a provision which requires that administration to accept payment in cash for the pecuniary obligations imposed by the administration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(c), Article 128(1) and Article 133 TFEU, and with the third sentence of the first paragraph of Article 16 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, must be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of any exercise by the European Union of its exclusive competence in the area of monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro, it precludes a Member State from adopting a provision which, in the light of its objective and its content, establishes legal rules governing the status of legal tender of euro banknotes. It does not, however, preclude a Member State from adopting, in the exercise of a competence that is the Member State’s own, such as the organisation of its public administration, a provision which requires that administration to accept payment in cash for the pecuniary obligations imposed by the administration.

| 2. | The third sentence of Article 128(1) TFEU, the third sentence of the first paragraph of Article 16 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and the second sentence of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the possibility of discharging a statutorily imposed payment obligation in banknotes denominated in euro, provided (i) that that legislation does not have the object or effect of establishing legal rules governing the status of legal tender of such banknotes; (ii) that it does not lead, in law or in fact, to abolition of those banknotes, in particular by calling into question the possibility, as a general rule, of discharging a payment obligation in cash; (iii) that it has been adopted for reasons of public interest; (iv) that the limitation on payments in cash which the legislation entails is appropriate for attaining the public interest objective pursued; and (v) that it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective, in that other lawful means of discharging the payment obligation are available. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The third sentence of Article 128(1) TFEU, the third sentence of the first paragraph of Article 16 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and the second sentence of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the possibility of discharging a statutorily imposed payment obligation in banknotes denominated in euro, provided (i) that that legislation does not have the object or effect of establishing legal rules governing the status of legal tender of such banknotes; (ii) that it does not lead, in law or in fact, to abolition of those banknotes, in particular by calling into question the possibility, as a general rule, of discharging a payment obligation in cash; (iii) that it has been adopted for reasons of public interest; (iv) that the limitation on payments in cash which the legislation entails is appropriate for attaining the public interest objective pursued; and (v) that it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective, in that other lawful means of discharging the payment obligation are available.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 January 2021 — Qualcomm Inc., Qualcomm Europe Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-466/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for UMTS-compliant baseband chipsets - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(3) - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Proportionality - Burden of proof - Self-incrimination)

(2021/C 88/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Qualcomm Inc., Qualcomm Europe Inc. (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato, avocat, and M. Davilla, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, G. Conte, M. Farley and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Europe Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Europe Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IR

(Case C-649/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/13/EU - Articles 4 to 7 - Letters of Rights set out in Annexes I and II - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Letter of Rights on arrest - Right to be informed of the accusation - Right of access to the materials of the case - Person arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant in the executing Member State)

(2021/C 88/11)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main criminal proceedings

IR

Interested party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4 (in particular Article 4(3)), Article 6(2) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the rights referred to therein do not apply to persons who are arrested for the purposes of the execution of a European arrest warrant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4 (in particular Article 4(3)), Article 6(2) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the rights referred to therein do not apply to persons who are arrested for the purposes of the execution of a European arrest warrant.

| 2. | The examination of the third and fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling has revealed nothing that is capable of affecting the validity of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, in the light of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The examination of the third and fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling has revealed nothing that is capable of affecting the validity of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, in the light of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 January 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-787/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Application to all types of clients - National legislation excluding travel services that are provided to taxable persons who use those services for their business - Article 73 - Taxable amount - Determination of a taxable amount on a flat-rate basis for groups of services or for all services provided during the taxable period - Incompatibility)

(2021/C 88/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wasmeier and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: F. Koppensteiner and A. Posch, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by excluding from the special value-added-tax (VAT) scheme applicable to travel agents travel services provided to taxable persons who use those services for their business, and by authorising travel agents, in so far as they are subject to that scheme, to determine the taxable amount for VAT on a flat-rate basis for groups of services or for all services provided during a tax year, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by excluding from the special value-added-tax (VAT) scheme applicable to travel agents travel services provided to taxable persons who use those services for their business, and by authorising travel agents, in so far as they are subject to that scheme, to determine the taxable amount for VAT on a flat-rate basis for groups of services or for all services provided during a tax year, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/11

---

Appeal brought on 15 June 2020 by ZU against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 31 March 2020 in Case T-499/19, ZU v EEAS

(Case C-266/20 P)

(2021/C 88/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service

By order of 20 January 2021, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) decided that the appeal is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/12

---

Appeal brought on 17 August 2020 by HZ, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of etc-gaming GmbH, and OX, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH, against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2020 in Case T-803/19, etc-gaming GmbH and Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-390/20 P)

(2021/C 88/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: HZ as liquidator in the insolvency of etc-gaming GmbH, OX as liquidator in the insolvency of Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 28 January 2021, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/12

---

Appeal brought on 25 August 2020 by Brands Up OÜ against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2020 in Case T-651/19 Brands Up OÜ v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-404/20 P)

(2021/C 88/15)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Appellant: Brands Up OÜ (represented by: M. Welin, asianajaja and J. Kaulo, luvan saanut oikeudenkäyntiavustaja)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 17 December 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) refused to grant leave to appeal and to order Brands Up OÜ to bear its own costs.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 2 December 2020 — HW, ZF, MZ v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG

(Case C-652/20)

(2021/C 88/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HW, ZF, MZ

Defendant: Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG

Question referred

Are the provisions of Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) to be interpreted as relating solely to the international jurisdiction of the Member States [of the European Union] or as also establishing the domestic (local) jurisdiction of the courts for the place where the beneficiary of the insurance policy is domiciled?

---

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

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Cazalla de la Sierra (Spain) lodged on 4 December 2020 — Caixabank, S.A. v ZN, SD, AH

(Case C-657/20)

(2021/C 88/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Cazalla de la Sierra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caixabank, S.A.

Defendants: ZN, SD, AH

Questions referred

Having regard to the rights set out in DIRECTIVE 93/13 (1) and the criteria laid down by the judgments of the European Court of Justice of 14 March 2013 and of 26 March 2019, which establish that non-performance of the payment obligation must be sufficiently serious in the light of the term and amount of the loan in order for the accelerated repayment clause to apply, the following question is referred:

Is it necessary for non-performance of the payment obligation to be sufficiently serious in respect of both the amount and the term of the loan simultaneously, or does it suffice for it to be sufficiently serious in respect of only one of those criteria?

If regard must be had to both criteria (term and amount of the loan), and both criteria must be satisfied and assessed jointly, this raises questions as to whether national legislation (Article 24 of Law 5/19) and national case-law (judgment of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) No 463/19) require both criteria to be weighed.

If both criteria (term and amount of the loan) must be satisfied and assessed jointly, this raises questions as to how to resolve cases where there is serious non-compliance only with regard to the amount of the loan as provided for in Article 24 of Law 5/19, on grounds of non-payment of 3 % of the principal sum, but there is no serious non-compliance as regards the term of the loan as provided for by the only temporal references in Article 24 of Law 5/19, in that fewer than 12 repayment instalments had been missed.

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 December 2020 — Veridos GmbH v Ministar na vatreshnite raboti na Republika Bulgaria, Mühlbauer ID Services GmbH — S&T

(Case C-669/20)

(2021/C 88/18)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Veridos GmbH

Respondents in the appeal on a point of law: Ministar na vatreshnite raboti na Republika Bulgaria, Mühlbauer ID Services GmbH — S&T

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 56 of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 69 thereof, or, respectively, Article 38 of Directive 2009/81/EC (2) in conjunction with Article 49 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority, where it is objectively impossible to apply the criterion laid down in national law for the evaluation of an abnormally low tender and in the absence of a different criterion selected by the contracting authority and announced in advance, is not required to verify whether an abnormally low tender exists? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 56 of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 69 thereof, or, respectively, Article 38 of Directive 2009/81/EC (2) in conjunction with Article 49 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority, where it is objectively impossible to apply the criterion laid down in national law for the evaluation of an abnormally low tender and in the absence of a different criterion selected by the contracting authority and announced in advance, is not required to verify whether an abnormally low tender exists?

| 2. | Is Article 56 of Directive [2014/24] in conjunction with Article 69 thereof, or, respectively, Article 38 of Directive [2009/81] in conjunction with Article 49 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority is required to verify whether abnormally low tenders exist only if there is a suspicion regarding any tender; or, conversely, is the contracting authority required to always ensure that the received tenders are genuine, and state the relevant reasons? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 56 of Directive [2014/24] in conjunction with Article 69 thereof, or, respectively, Article 38 of Directive [2009/81] in conjunction with Article 49 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority is required to verify whether abnormally low tenders exist only if there is a suspicion regarding any tender; or, conversely, is the contracting authority required to always ensure that the received tenders are genuine, and state the relevant reasons?

| 3. | Does such a requirement apply to the contracting authority if only two tenders have been received during the procedure for the award of a public contract? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does such a requirement apply to the contracting authority if only two tenders have been received during the procedure for the award of a public contract?

| 4. | Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority’s assessment as regards a lack of suspicion that an abnormally low tender exists, or, respectively, that contracting authority’s conviction that the first-ranked tenderer has submitted a genuine tender, is subject to judicial review? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority’s assessment as regards a lack of suspicion that an abnormally low tender exists, or, respectively, that contracting authority’s conviction that the first-ranked tenderer has submitted a genuine tender, is subject to judicial review?

| 5. | Should the previous question be answered in the affirmative: Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority in a procedure for the award of a public contract which has not verified whether an abnormally low tender exists is required to provide justification and reasons as to why there is no suspicion that an abnormally low tender has been submitted, in other words, that the first-ranked tender is genuine? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Should the previous question be answered in the affirmative: Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority in a procedure for the award of a public contract which has not verified whether an abnormally low tender exists is required to provide justification and reasons as to why there is no suspicion that an abnormally low tender has been submitted, in other words, that the first-ranked tender is genuine?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(2)  Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC (OJ 2009 L 216, p. 76).

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 December 2020 — ‘Banka DSK’ EAD v RP

(Case C-689/20)

(2021/C 88/19)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Banka DSK’ EAD

Defendant: RP

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) read in conjunction with subparagraphs (e) and (f) of paragraph 1 of the annex to that directive, and Article 15(2) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union] to be interpreted as meaning that terms are contrary to the requirement of good faith and are to the disadvantage of the consumer if they substantially increase the consumer’s costs under a credit agreement in the event that the consumer does not transfer his or her salary to [an account with] the lending bank each month, taking into account that, under the terms of the agreement, that consumer is obliged to create a pledge on his or her claim to salary, irrespective of how and in which country he or she receives that salary? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) read in conjunction with subparagraphs (e) and (f) of paragraph 1 of the annex to that directive, and Article 15(2) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union] to be interpreted as meaning that terms are contrary to the requirement of good faith and are to the disadvantage of the consumer if they substantially increase the consumer’s costs under a credit agreement in the event that the consumer does not transfer his or her salary to [an account with] the lending bank each month, taking into account that, under the terms of the agreement, that consumer is obliged to create a pledge on his or her claim to salary, irrespective of how and in which country he or she receives that salary?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative, is Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, read in conjunction with subparagraphs (e) and (f) of paragraph 1 of the annex to that directive, to be interpreted as meaning that terms are contrary to the requirement of good faith and are to the disadvantage of the consumer if they oblige the consumer, in addition to transferring his or her salary to [an account with] the trader granting the credit, to effectively use other services of that trader? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, is Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, read in conjunction with subparagraphs (e) and (f) of paragraph 1 of the annex to that directive, to be interpreted as meaning that terms are contrary to the requirement of good faith and are to the disadvantage of the consumer if they oblige the consumer, in addition to transferring his or her salary to [an account with] the trader granting the credit, to effectively use other services of that trader?

| 3. | If the second question is answered in the affirmative as a matter of principle, on what criteria should the national court base its assessment of unfairness? In particular, should it take account of the degree of the connection between the subject matter of the credit agreement and the ancillary services which the consumer is obliged to use, the number of services and the national rules on the restriction of tied sales? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the second question is answered in the affirmative as a matter of principle, on what criteria should the national court base its assessment of unfairness? In particular, should it take account of the degree of the connection between the subject matter of the credit agreement and the ancillary services which the consumer is obliged to use, the number of services and the national rules on the restriction of tied sales?

| 4. | Does the principle of interpreting national law in conformity with EU law, as established in paragraph 26 of the judgment in Case 14/83, von Colson, also apply to the interpretation of national legal provisions governing areas of law (in casu, rules on unfair competition) which have a legal subject matter that is different from but related to that of the act of EU law applied by the national court in the proceedings before it (in casu, Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the principle of interpreting national law in conformity with EU law, as established in paragraph 26 of the judgment in Case 14/83, von Colson, also apply to the interpretation of national legal provisions governing areas of law (in casu, rules on unfair competition) which have a legal subject matter that is different from but related to that of the act of EU law applied by the national court in the proceedings before it (in casu, Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts)?

| 5. | Are Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC, (2) read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(d) thereof, and Article 10(2)(f) of Directive 2008/48/EC (3) to be interpreted as prohibiting the indication of a lower borrowing rate in the main consumer credit agreement if the granting of the credit at that borrowing rate is made subject to conditions laid down in an annex to the agreement? Should such an assessment entail an examination of the wording of the conditions for the reduction of the borrowing rate, the loss of such a reduction and the means by which that reduction can be recovered? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC, (2) read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(d) thereof, and Article 10(2)(f) of Directive 2008/48/EC (3) to be interpreted as prohibiting the indication of a lower borrowing rate in the main consumer credit agreement if the granting of the credit at that borrowing rate is made subject to conditions laid down in an annex to the agreement? Should such an assessment entail an examination of the wording of the conditions for the reduction of the borrowing rate, the loss of such a reduction and the means by which that reduction can be recovered?

| 6. | Is Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2005/29/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, when assessing the possibility that the economic behaviour of consumers might be materially altered, the market share of a bank granting consumer loans must be taken into account, having regard to the needs of the consumers who use such products? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2005/29/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, when assessing the possibility that the economic behaviour of consumers might be materially altered, the market share of a bank granting consumer loans must be taken into account, having regard to the needs of the consumers who use such products?

| 7. | Is Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the costs specified in contracts which relate to a consumer credit agreement and the performance of which results in the granting of a discount on the interest under the consumer credit agreement form part of the annual percentage rate of charge of the loan and must be included in the calculation thereof? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Is Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the costs specified in contracts which relate to a consumer credit agreement and the performance of which results in the granting of a discount on the interest under the consumer credit agreement form part of the annual percentage rate of charge of the loan and must be included in the calculation thereof?

| 8. | Is Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC, read in conjunction with Article 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of non-performance of obligations under contracts relating to the credit agreement, which is tied to an increase in the borrowing rate of the loan, the annual percentage rate of charge of the loan must be calculated also on the basis of the increased borrowing rate in the event of non-performance? |
| --- | --- |

8.

Is Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC, read in conjunction with Article 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of non-performance of obligations under contracts relating to the credit agreement, which is tied to an increase in the borrowing rate of the loan, the annual percentage rate of charge of the loan must be calculated also on the basis of the increased borrowing rate in the event of non-performance?

| 9. | Is Article 10(2)(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that an incorrect indication of the annual percentage rate of charge in a credit agreement between a trader and a consumer borrower must be regarded as a failure to indicate the annual percentage rate of charge in the credit agreement and that the national court must apply the legal consequences provided for under domestic law for failure to indicate the annual percentage rate of charge in a consumer credit agreement? |
| --- | --- |

9.

Is Article 10(2)(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that an incorrect indication of the annual percentage rate of charge in a credit agreement between a trader and a consumer borrower must be regarded as a failure to indicate the annual percentage rate of charge in the credit agreement and that the national court must apply the legal consequences provided for under domestic law for failure to indicate the annual percentage rate of charge in a consumer credit agreement?

| 10. | Is Article 22(4) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a penalty provided for by the national legislature, in the form of nullity of the consumer credit agreement, whereby only the principal amount granted is to be repaid, is proportionate in situations where a consumer credit agreement does not contain an accurate indication of the annual percentage rate of charge? |
| --- | --- |

10.

Is Article 22(4) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a penalty provided for by the national legislature, in the form of nullity of the consumer credit agreement, whereby only the principal amount granted is to be repaid, is proportionate in situations where a consumer credit agreement does not contain an accurate indication of the annual percentage rate of charge?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

(2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

(3)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava I (Slovakia) lodged on 29 December 2020 — Criminal proceedings against A.M.

(Case C-710/20)

(2021/C 88/20)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Bratislava I

Party to the main proceedings

Krajská prokuratúra v Bratislave, A.M.

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a provision of a national law that annuls directly — without a decision of a national court — the decision of a national court discontinuing criminal proceedings, which is, under national legislation, a final decision entailing acquittal and on the basis of which the criminal proceedings have been definitively discontinued as a result of the amnesty granted in accordance with a national law, comply with the right to a fair trial, guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and with the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence, guaranteed in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
  If the answer to this question is in the negative, is the national court bound by such a provision of national law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a provision of a national law that annuls directly — without a decision of a national court — the decision of a national court discontinuing criminal proceedings, which is, under national legislation, a final decision entailing acquittal and on the basis of which the criminal proceedings have been definitively discontinued as a result of the amnesty granted in accordance with a national law, comply with the right to a fair trial, guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and with the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence, guaranteed in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
  If the answer to this question is in the negative, is the national court bound by such a provision of national law?

| 2. | Does a provision of national law limiting review by the Constitutional Court of a resolution of the Národná rada Slovenskej republiky (Parliament of the Slovak Republic) which revoked an amnesty or an individual pardon and was adopted under Article 86(i) of the Ústava SR (Constitution of the Slovak Republic), merely to an assessment of the resolution’s compliance with the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, without taking into account binding acts adopted by the European Union, in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty on European Union, comply with the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and with Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with the right to a fair trial, guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and with the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence, guaranteed in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
  If the answer to this question is in the negative, is the national court bound by such a ruling of the national Constitutional Court? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does a provision of national law limiting review by the Constitutional Court of a resolution of the Národná rada Slovenskej republiky (Parliament of the Slovak Republic) which revoked an amnesty or an individual pardon and was adopted under Article 86(i) of the Ústava SR (Constitution of the Slovak Republic), merely to an assessment of the resolution’s compliance with the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, without taking into account binding acts adopted by the European Union, in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty on European Union, comply with the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and with Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with the right to a fair trial, guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and with the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence, guaranteed in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
  If the answer to this question is in the negative, is the national court bound by such a ruling of the national Constitutional Court?

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 31 December 2020 — TanQuid Polska Sp. z o. o. v Generální ředitelství cel

(Case C-711/20)

(2021/C 88/21)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TanQuid Polska Sp. z o. o.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Questions referred

| 1. | Are products that are subject to excise duty transported pursuant to a suspension arrangement within the meaning of Article 4(c) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1) in a situation where a customs office of one Member State agreed to the movement of products under a duty-suspension arrangement from a tax warehouse to a registered trader established in another Member State, even though the conditions for the movement of those products under the duty-suspension arrangement were objectively not met, it having been established at a subsequent stage of the procedure that the registered trader had no knowledge of the movement of the products, due to fraud by third parties? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are products that are subject to excise duty transported pursuant to a suspension arrangement within the meaning of Article 4(c) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1) in a situation where a customs office of one Member State agreed to the movement of products under a duty-suspension arrangement from a tax warehouse to a registered trader established in another Member State, even though the conditions for the movement of those products under the duty-suspension arrangement were objectively not met, it having been established at a subsequent stage of the procedure that the registered trader had no knowledge of the movement of the products, due to fraud by third parties?

| 2. | Does the provision of an excise duty guarantee, as provided for by Article 15(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC, issued for a purpose other than the movement of products under a duty-suspension arrangement between a tax warehouse and a registered trader established in another Member State preclude the due commencement of movement under a duty-suspension arrangement, if the provision of the guarantee was recorded in the accompanying documents for the movement of the products under the duty-suspension arrangement for the registered trader and confirmed by the customs authority of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the provision of an excise duty guarantee, as provided for by Article 15(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC, issued for a purpose other than the movement of products under a duty-suspension arrangement between a tax warehouse and a registered trader established in another Member State preclude the due commencement of movement under a duty-suspension arrangement, if the provision of the guarantee was recorded in the accompanying documents for the movement of the products under the duty-suspension arrangement for the registered trader and confirmed by the customs authority of the Member State?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Cottbus (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2020 — RO, legally represented v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-720/20)

(2021/C 88/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Cottbus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RO, legally represented

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, itself represented by the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge

Questions referred

| 1. | In the light of the objective of EU law to avoid secondary movements and of the principle of family unity expressed in that regulation, must Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (1) be applied by analogy in a situation where a minor child and its parents lodge applications for international protection in the same Member State, but the parents already enjoy international protection in another Member State, whereas the child was born in the Member State in which it lodged the application for international protection? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the light of the objective of EU law to avoid secondary movements and of the principle of family unity expressed in that regulation, must Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (1) be applied by analogy in a situation where a minor child and its parents lodge applications for international protection in the same Member State, but the parents already enjoy international protection in another Member State, whereas the child was born in the Member State in which it lodged the application for international protection?

| 2. | If the question is answered in the affirmative, should the minor child’s application for asylum under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 not be examined and should a transfer decision under Article 26 of the regulation be adopted, having regard to the fact that, for instance, the Member State in which that minor child’s parents enjoy international protection is responsible for examining the minor child’s application for international protection? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the question is answered in the affirmative, should the minor child’s application for asylum under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 not be examined and should a transfer decision under Article 26 of the regulation be adopted, having regard to the fact that, for instance, the Member State in which that minor child’s parents enjoy international protection is responsible for examining the minor child’s application for international protection?

| 3. | If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 also applicable by analogy in so far as, under the second sentence thereof, it is not necessary to initiate a procedure for taking charge of a child born subsequently, despite the fact that there is then a risk that the host Member State has no knowledge of the possible need to take charge of the minor child or that, in accordance with its administrative practice, it refuses to apply Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 by analogy and, consequently, there is a risk that the minor child will become a ‘refugee in orbit’ (see BVerwG judgment of 23 June 2020-1 C 37.19; ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2020:230620U1C37.19.0)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 also applicable by analogy in so far as, under the second sentence thereof, it is not necessary to initiate a procedure for taking charge of a child born subsequently, despite the fact that there is then a risk that the host Member State has no knowledge of the possible need to take charge of the minor child or that, in accordance with its administrative practice, it refuses to apply Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 by analogy and, consequently, there is a risk that the minor child will become a ‘refugee in orbit’ (see BVerwG judgment of 23 June 2020-1 C 37.19; ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2020:230620U1C37.19.0)?

| 4. | If Questions 2 and 3 are answered in the negative, can a decision on inadmissibility under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU (2) be adopted by analogy in respect of a minor child who has lodged an application for international protection in a Member State even if it is not the child itself but its parents who enjoy international protection in another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Questions 2 and 3 are answered in the negative, can a decision on inadmissibility under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU (2) be adopted by analogy in respect of a minor child who has lodged an application for international protection in a Member State even if it is not the child itself but its parents who enjoy international protection in another Member State?

---

(1)  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 (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

(2)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2020 — DB Station & Service AG v ODEG Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn GmbH

(Case C-721/20)

(2021/C 88/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DB Station & Service AG

Defendant: ODEG Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it compatible with Directive 2001/14/EC, (1) including its provisions on the management independence of the infrastructure undertaking (Article 4), the principles of charging (Articles 7 to 12) and the tasks of the regulatory body (Article 30), for national civil courts to review the charges levied based on the criteria laid down in Article 102 TFEU and/or in national competition law on a case-by-case basis independently of the monitoring carried out by the regulatory body? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with Directive 2001/14/EC, (1) including its provisions on the management independence of the infrastructure undertaking (Article 4), the principles of charging (Articles 7 to 12) and the tasks of the regulatory body (Article 30), for national civil courts to review the charges levied based on the criteria laid down in Article 102 TFEU and/or in national competition law on a case-by-case basis independently of the monitoring carried out by the regulatory body?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Are the national civil courts permitted and required to conduct an assessment of abusive practices in the light of the criteria laid down in Article 102 TFEU and/or in national competition law, even where the rail transport undertakings have the possibility to request the competent regulatory body to review the fairness of the charges paid? Must the national civil courts wait for a decision in the matter by the regulatory body and, where applicable, if it is contested before the courts, for that decision to become enforceable? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Are the national civil courts permitted and required to conduct an assessment of abusive practices in the light of the criteria laid down in Article 102 TFEU and/or in national competition law, even where the rail transport undertakings have the possibility to request the competent regulatory body to review the fairness of the charges paid? Must the national civil courts wait for a decision in the matter by the regulatory body and, where applicable, if it is contested before the courts, for that decision to become enforceable?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 January 2021 — MC v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-1/21)

(2021/C 88/24)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MC

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 9 of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, read in conjunction with Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude, in the harmonised field of value added tax, a national legal instrument such as that provided for in Article 19(2) of the DOPK [Danachno-osiguritelen protsesualen kodeks (Code of Tax and Social Security Procedure)], the application of which has the effect of triggering post factum the joint and several liability of a non-taxable natural person who is not liable for payment of VAT but whose conduct in bad faith led to non-payment of VAT by the taxable legal person which is liable for that payment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 9 of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, read in conjunction with Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude, in the harmonised field of value added tax, a national legal instrument such as that provided for in Article 19(2) of the DOPK [Danachno-osiguritelen protsesualen kodeks (Code of Tax and Social Security Procedure)], the application of which has the effect of triggering post factum the joint and several liability of a non-taxable natural person who is not liable for payment of VAT but whose conduct in bad faith led to non-payment of VAT by the taxable legal person which is liable for that payment?

| 2. | Do the interpretation of those provisions and the application of the principle of proportionality preclude the national legal instrument provided for in Article 19(2) of the DOPK also in respect of interest on VAT not paid in due time by the taxable person liable for that payment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the interpretation of those provisions and the application of the principle of proportionality preclude the national legal instrument provided for in Article 19(2) of the DOPK also in respect of interest on VAT not paid in due time by the taxable person liable for that payment?

| 3. | Is the national legal instrument provided for in Article 19(2) of the DOPK contrary to the principle of proportionality in a case where the late payment of VAT, which led to interest being charged on the VAT debt, is attributable not to the conduct of the non-taxable natural person, but to the conduct of another person or to the manifestation of objective circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the national legal instrument provided for in Article 19(2) of the DOPK contrary to the principle of proportionality in a case where the late payment of VAT, which led to interest being charged on the VAT debt, is attributable not to the conduct of the non-taxable natural person, but to the conduct of another person or to the manifestation of objective circumstances?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bleiburg (Austria) lodged on 8 January 2021 — LKW WALTER Internationale Transportorganisation AG v CB and Others

(Case C-7/21)

(2021/C 88/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bezirksgericht Bleiburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LKW WALTER Internationale Transportorganisation AG

Defendants: CB, DF, GH

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 36 and 39 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012, (1) read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of effectiveness and equivalence (principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU), to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State which provides for, as the sole remedy against a decision on enforcement issued by the court without prior adversarial proceedings and without an instrument permitting enforcement, and solely on the basis of the allegations of the party seeking enforcement, an objection, which must be lodged within eight days in the language of that Member State, even if the decision on enforcement is served in another Member State in a language which the addressee does not understand, and the objection is already rejected as being out of time if it is lodged within twelve days? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 36 and 39 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012, (1) read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of effectiveness and equivalence (principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU), to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State which provides for, as the sole remedy against a decision on enforcement issued by the court without prior adversarial proceedings and without an instrument permitting enforcement, and solely on the basis of the allegations of the party seeking enforcement, an objection, which must be lodged within eight days in the language of that Member State, even if the decision on enforcement is served in another Member State in a language which the addressee does not understand, and the objection is already rejected as being out of time if it is lodged within twelve days?

| 2. | Is Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007, (2) read in conjunction with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, to be interpreted as precluding a national measure which provides that, upon service of the standard form set out in Annex II informing the addressee of his or her right to refuse to accept the document within a period of one week, the period also begins to run in respect of bringing the appeal provided for against the decision on enforcement served at the same time, for which a period of eight days is laid down? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007, (2) read in conjunction with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, to be interpreted as precluding a national measure which provides that, upon service of the standard form set out in Annex II informing the addressee of his or her right to refuse to accept the document within a period of one week, the period also begins to run in respect of bringing the appeal provided for against the decision on enforcement served at the same time, for which a period of eight days is laid down?

| 3. | Is Article 18(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State which provides for, as the remedy against a decision on enforcement, an objection, which must be lodged within eight days, and that time limit also applies where the addressee of the decision on enforcement is established in another Member State and the decision on enforcement is not written either in the official language of the Member State in which the decision on enforcement is served or in a language which the addressee of the decision understands? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 18(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State which provides for, as the remedy against a decision on enforcement, an objection, which must be lodged within eight days, and that time limit also applies where the addressee of the decision on enforcement is established in another Member State and the decision on enforcement is not written either in the official language of the Member State in which the decision on enforcement is served or in a language which the addressee of the decision understands?

---

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

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79).

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Germanwings GmbH v KV

(Case C-8/21)

(2021/C 88/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Germanwings GmbH

Defendant: KV

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — AX v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-9/21)

(2021/C 88/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: AX

Respondent: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v TZ

(Case C-10/21)

(2021/C 88/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent: TZ

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v IY and TP

(Case C-11/21)

(2021/C 88/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondents: IY, TP

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v FL

(Case C-12/21)

(2021/C 88/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent: FL

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 11 January 2021 — Sabiedrisko pakalpojumu regulēšanas komisija, Ekonomikas ministrija, Finanšu ministrija v SIA GM

(Case C-17/21)

(2021/C 88/31)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Sabiedrisko pakalpojumu regulēšanas komisija

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: SIA GM

Other parties to the proceedings: Ekonomikas ministrija, Finanšu ministrija

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the obligation imposed on the public operator to purchase electricity at a price higher than the market price from producers who use renewable energy sources to generate electricity, relying on the obligation imposed on the end consumer to pay in proportion to use, be deemed to constitute intervention by the State or through State resources for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the obligation imposed on the public operator to purchase electricity at a price higher than the market price from producers who use renewable energy sources to generate electricity, relying on the obligation imposed on the end consumer to pay in proportion to use, be deemed to constitute intervention by the State or through State resources for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

| 2. | Is the concept of ‘liberalisation of the market in electricity’ to be interpreted as meaning that liberalisation must be deemed to have already occurred where certain aspects of free trade exist, such as, for example, contracts concluded by a public operator with suppliers from other Member States? Can liberalisation of the market in electricity be deemed to begin when the law grants some electricity users (for example, electricity users connected to the transport network or non-domestic electricity users connected to the distribution network) the right to change electricity distributor? What effect do developments in the regulation of the electricity market in Latvia have on the assessment of aid granted to electricity producers in the light of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (for the purposes of the answer to question 1), in particular, the situation prior to 2007? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the concept of ‘liberalisation of the market in electricity’ to be interpreted as meaning that liberalisation must be deemed to have already occurred where certain aspects of free trade exist, such as, for example, contracts concluded by a public operator with suppliers from other Member States? Can liberalisation of the market in electricity be deemed to begin when the law grants some electricity users (for example, electricity users connected to the transport network or non-domestic electricity users connected to the distribution network) the right to change electricity distributor? What effect do developments in the regulation of the electricity market in Latvia have on the assessment of aid granted to electricity producers in the light of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (for the purposes of the answer to question 1), in particular, the situation prior to 2007?

| 3. | If the answers to questions 1 and 2 make clear that the aid granted to electricity producers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, do the fact that the applicant now operates in a liberalised electricity market and the fact that the payment of compensation would now afford it an advantage over other operators present on the market concerned mean that compensation for the loss must be treated as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answers to questions 1 and 2 make clear that the aid granted to electricity producers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, do the fact that the applicant now operates in a liberalised electricity market and the fact that the payment of compensation would now afford it an advantage over other operators present on the market concerned mean that compensation for the loss must be treated as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

| 4. | If the answers to questions 1 and 2 make clear that the aid granted to electricity producers is State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, must it be considered, in the context of the supervision of State aid provided for in that provision, that the applicant’s claim for compensation for the loss sustained due to failure to respect fully the statutory right to receive a higher payment for electricity generated constitutes a request for new State aid or a request for payment of the portion of State aid not previously received? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answers to questions 1 and 2 make clear that the aid granted to electricity producers is State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, must it be considered, in the context of the supervision of State aid provided for in that provision, that the applicant’s claim for compensation for the loss sustained due to failure to respect fully the statutory right to receive a higher payment for electricity generated constitutes a request for new State aid or a request for payment of the portion of State aid not previously received?

| 5. | If question 4 is answered to the effect that the claim for compensation must be assessed, in the context of past circumstances, as a request for payment of the portion of State aid not previously received, does if follow from Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that, at the present time, in order to adjudicate on the payment of that State aid, it is necessary to examine the current market situation and to take account of the legislation in force (including the limitations currently in existence to prevent overcompensation)? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If question 4 is answered to the effect that the claim for compensation must be assessed, in the context of past circumstances, as a request for payment of the portion of State aid not previously received, does if follow from Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that, at the present time, in order to adjudicate on the payment of that State aid, it is necessary to examine the current market situation and to take account of the legislation in force (including the limitations currently in existence to prevent overcompensation)?

| 6. | Is it significant, for the purposes of the interpretation of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that wind power plants, unlike hydroelectric power plants, have benefitted in the past from the full amount of State aid? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is it significant, for the purposes of the interpretation of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that wind power plants, unlike hydroelectric power plants, have benefitted in the past from the full amount of State aid?

| 7. | Is it significant, for the purposes of the interpretation of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that only some of the hydroelectric power plants which have not received the full amount of State aid should now receive compensation? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Is it significant, for the purposes of the interpretation of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that only some of the hydroelectric power plants which have not received the full amount of State aid should now receive compensation?

| 8. | Must Article 3(2) and Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid be interpreted as meaning that, since the amount of the aid at issue in the present case does not exceed the threshold for de minimis aid, (1) that aid should be considered to fulfil the criteria laid down for de minimis aid? Must Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1407/2013 be interpreted as meaning that, in the present case, in view of the conditions for preventing overcompensation set out in Commission Decision SA.43140, the treatment of the payment of damages as de minimis aid is liable to create unacceptable cumulation? |
| --- | --- |

8.

Must Article 3(2) and Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid be interpreted as meaning that, since the amount of the aid at issue in the present case does not exceed the threshold for de minimis aid, (1) that aid should be considered to fulfil the criteria laid down for de minimis aid? Must Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1407/2013 be interpreted as meaning that, in the present case, in view of the conditions for preventing overcompensation set out in Commission Decision SA.43140, the treatment of the payment of damages as de minimis aid is liable to create unacceptable cumulation?

| 9. | If the view is taken in the present case that State aid was granted/paid, must Article 1(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that circumstances like those of the present case amount to new State aid and not existing State aid? |
| --- | --- |

9.

If the view is taken in the present case that State aid was granted/paid, must Article 1(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that circumstances like those of the present case amount to new State aid and not existing State aid?

| 10. | If question 9 is answered in the affirmative, in order to assess whether the applicant’s situation matches that of aid which is deemed to be existing aid, as referred to in Article 1(b)(iv) of Regulation 2015/1589, must account be taken solely of the date on which the aid was effectively paid as the starting point of the limitation period for the purposes of Article 17(2) of Regulation 2015/1589? |
| --- | --- |

10.

If question 9 is answered in the affirmative, in order to assess whether the applicant’s situation matches that of aid which is deemed to be existing aid, as referred to in Article 1(b)(iv) of Regulation 2015/1589, must account be taken solely of the date on which the aid was effectively paid as the starting point of the limitation period for the purposes of Article 17(2) of Regulation 2015/1589?

| 11. | If it is considered that State aid has been granted/paid, must Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 2(1) and (3) of Regulation 2015/1589 be interpreted as meaning that a procedure to notify State aid like that at issue in the present case is deemed to be appropriate where the national court upholds the claim for compensation for the loss sustained on condition that a decision has been received from the Commission which approves the aid and directs the Ministry of the Economy to forward to the Commission, within two months of delivery of the judgment, the relevant declaration of aid for the business activity? |
| --- | --- |

11.

If it is considered that State aid has been granted/paid, must Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 2(1) and (3) of Regulation 2015/1589 be interpreted as meaning that a procedure to notify State aid like that at issue in the present case is deemed to be appropriate where the national court upholds the claim for compensation for the loss sustained on condition that a decision has been received from the Commission which approves the aid and directs the Ministry of the Economy to forward to the Commission, within two months of delivery of the judgment, the relevant declaration of aid for the business activity?

| 12. | Is it significant, for the purpose of interpreting Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that compensation for the loss sustained is claimed from a public sector body (Public Services Regulatory Commission) which, historically, has not had to bear such costs, and also that that body’s budget is made up of State charges paid by public service providers belonging to regulated sectors which must be ringfenced for regulatory activity? |
| --- | --- |

12.

Is it significant, for the purpose of interpreting Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that compensation for the loss sustained is claimed from a public sector body (Public Services Regulatory Commission) which, historically, has not had to bear such costs, and also that that body’s budget is made up of State charges paid by public service providers belonging to regulated sectors which must be ringfenced for regulatory activity?

| 13. | Is a compensation scheme like that at issue in the present case compatible with the principles contained in EU law and applicable to regulated sectors, in particular Article 12 and recital 30 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), (3) as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009? |
| --- | --- |

13.

Is a compensation scheme like that at issue in the present case compatible with the principles contained in EU law and applicable to regulated sectors, in particular Article 12 and recital 30 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), (3) as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 352, p. 1.

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

(3)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21, Special edition in Latvian: Chapter 13 Volume 029 P. 337.

(4)  Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37).

---

General Court

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-699/17) (1)

(Environment - Directive 2010/75/EU - Industrial emissions - Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 - Large combustion plants - Best available techniques (BAT) conclusions - Article 16(4) and (5) TEU - Article 3(2) and (3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions - Application of the law ratione temporis - Comitology)

(2021/C 88/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: Ł. Habiak, K. Herrmann and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: E. Petranova and T. Mitova, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: J. Traband and A.-L. Desjonquères, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev, L. Zettergren and A. Alriksson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 of 31 July 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for large combustion plants (OJ 2017 L 212, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 of 31 July 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for large combustion plants; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 of 31 July 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for large combustion plants;

| 2. | Orders that the effects of the implementing decision annulled pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present operative part be maintained until the entry into force, within a reasonable period which cannot exceed twelve months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of a new act intended to replace it and adopted in accordance with the qualified-majority rules laid down in Article 3(3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that the effects of the implementing decision annulled pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present operative part be maintained until the entry into force, within a reasonable period which cannot exceed twelve months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of a new act intended to replace it and adopted in accordance with the qualified-majority rules laid down in Article 3(3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland;

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the French Republic, Hungary and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the French Republic, Hungary and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — KPN v Commission

(Case T-691/18) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Netherlands market for television services and telecommunications services - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Relevant market - Vertical effects - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 88/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KPN BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. van Ginneken and G. Béquet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, G. Conte, J. Szczodrowski and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: VodafoneZiggo Group Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Vodafone Group plc (Newbury, United Kingdom), Liberty Global Europe Holding BV (Amsterdam) (represented by: W. Knibbeler, E. Raedts, A. Pliego Selie and I. Lulof, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 3569 final of 30 May 2018 declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Liberty Global of sole control over Ziggo NV to be compatible with the internal market and the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) (Case COMP/M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders KPN BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders KPN BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — ClientEarth v EIB

(Case T-9/19) (1)

(Environment - Financing of a biomass power generation plant in Galicia - Resolution of the Board of Directors of the EIB approving the financing - Access to justice in environmental matters - Articles 9 and 10 of the Aarhus Convention - Articles 10 to 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Request for an internal review - Refusal of the request as inadmissible - Action for annulment - Admissibility of a ground of defence - Obligation to state reasons - Concept of an act adopted under environmental law - Concept of an act having a legally binding and external effect)

(2021/C 88/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Flynn QC, H. Leith and S. Abram, Barristers)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Blanc and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB), communicated to the applicant by letter of 30 October 2018, rejecting as inadmissible the request for an internal review of the resolution of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 12 April 2018 approving the financing of a biomass power generation plant in Galicia (Spain) which the applicant had submitted on 9 August 2018, in application of Article 10 of Council 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) and of Commission Decision 2008/50/EC of 13 December 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1367/2006 as regards requests for the internal review of administrative acts (OJ 2008 L 13, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB), communicated to ClientEarth by letter of 30 October 2018, rejecting as inadmissible the request for an internal review of the resolution of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 12 April 2018 approving the financing of a biomass power generation plant in Galicia (Spain) which ClientEarth had submitted on 9 August 2018, in application of Article 10 of Council 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 and Commission Decision 2008/50/EC of 13 December 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1367/2006 as regards requests for the internal review of administrative acts; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB), communicated to ClientEarth by letter of 30 October 2018, rejecting as inadmissible the request for an internal review of the resolution of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 12 April 2018 approving the financing of a biomass power generation plant in Galicia (Spain) which ClientEarth had submitted on 9 August 2018, in application of Article 10 of Council 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 and Commission Decision 2008/50/EC of 13 December 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1367/2006 as regards requests for the internal review of administrative acts;

| 2. | Orders the EIB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ClientEarth; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the EIB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ClientEarth;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Turk Hava Yollari v EUIPO — Sky (skylife)

(Case T-382/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark skylife - Earlier EU word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 88/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Turk Hava Yollari AO (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Brackenbury, Solicitor, and A. Zalewska, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2019 (Case R 880/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Sky and Turk Hava Yollari.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Turk Hava Yollari AO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Sky Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Turk Hava Yollari AO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Sky Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO — OmniVision (Hydrovision)

(Case T-817/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Hydrovision - Earlier EU word mark Hylo-Vision - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 88/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. (Dębica, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: OmniVision GmbH (Puchheim, Germany) (represented by: B. Sorg, D. Wiedemann and M. Ringer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2019 (Case R 2371/2018 2), relating to opposition proceedings between OmniVision and Olimp Laboratories.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Olimp Laboratories sp z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Olimp Laboratories sp z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA)

(Case T-829/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA - Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 88/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bacardi & Co. Ltd (Meyrin, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 2531/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bacardi & Co. and Palírna U Zeléného stromu.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA)

(Case T-830/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA - Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 88/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bacardi & Co. Ltd (Meyrin, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 2532/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bacardi & Co. and Palírna U Zeléného stromu.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA)

(Case T-831/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA - Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 88/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bacardi & Co. Ltd (Meyrin, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 2533/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bacardi & Co. and Palírna U Zeléného stromu.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (EGGY FOOD)

(Case T-287/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark EGGY FOOD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 88/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 (Case R 1316/2019-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EGGY FOOD as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Eggy Food GmbH & Co KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/31

---

Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

(Case T-734/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Institutional law - Member of Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Request for an urgent initiative to confirm the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 88/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by: A. Van den Eynde Adroer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, N. Görlitz and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letter of 22 August 2019 by which the President of the Parliament rejected the request to take an urgent initiative seeking to confirm the applicant’s immunity, made on 4 July 2019 on his behalf by Ms Riba i Giner, Member of the European Parliament, on the basis of Article 8 of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the Kingdom of Spain’s application to intervene; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the Kingdom of Spain’s application to intervene;

| 3. | Orders Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its costs relating to its application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its costs relating to its application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/32

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 22 January 2021 — Green Power Technologies v Commission and ECSEL Joint Undertaking

(Case T-533/20 R)

(Interim measures - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Reimbursement of sums paid - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2021/C 88/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Green Power Technologies, SL (Bollullos de la Mitación, Spain) (represented by: A. León González and A. Martínez Solís, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents), ECSEL Joint Undertaking (represented by: A. Salaun, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of the operation of debit note No 4440200016 of 17 June 2020 issued by the ECSEL Joint Undertaking for the amount of EUR 200 930,35.

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.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/32

---

Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — KC v Commission

(Case T-580/20) (1)

(Action for damages - State aid - Complaint - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2021/C 88/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KC (represented by: L. Frölich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant owing to the Commission’s failure to initiate, in a timely manner, the formal investigation procedure following the applicant’s State aid complaint (SA.46963).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders KC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders KC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/33

---

Action brought on 20 December 2020 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB

(Case T-761/20)

(2021/C 88/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Sfyri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the ECB to exclude the applicant’s tenders from all three lots of the procurement procedure ‘Provision of services and works for IT Application Delivery’ PRO-004801 (Lot 1), PRO-005110 (Lot 2) and PRO-005112 (Lot 3); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the ECB to exclude the applicant’s tenders from all three lots of the procurement procedure ‘Provision of services and works for IT Application Delivery’ PRO-004801 (Lot 1), PRO-005110 (Lot 2) and PRO-005112 (Lot 3);

| — | annul the appeal decision of the ECB Procurement Review Body to reject the applicant’s appeal submitted in accordance with the appeal procedure as defined in section VI.4 of the tender specifications of the abovementioned call for tenders and under the conditions set out in Article 39 of the ECB Procurement Decision (ECB/2016/2); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appeal decision of the ECB Procurement Review Body to reject the applicant’s appeal submitted in accordance with the appeal procedure as defined in section VI.4 of the tender specifications of the abovementioned call for tenders and under the conditions set out in Article 39 of the ECB Procurement Decision (ECB/2016/2);

| — | annul all the subsequent related decisions of the ECB and in particular any award decision which was never communicated to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all the subsequent related decisions of the ECB and in particular any award decision which was never communicated to the applicant;

| — | award damages according to Articles 256, 268 and 340 TFEU corresponding to the loss of the chance to secure the contracts or to the loss of income corresponding to the profit that the applicant would have made if it had performed the contracts and to the compensation corresponding to the non-material damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

award damages according to Articles 256, 268 and 340 TFEU corresponding to the loss of the chance to secure the contracts or to the loss of income corresponding to the profit that the applicant would have made if it had performed the contracts and to the compensation corresponding to the non-material damages;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made several manifest errors of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made several manifest errors of assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant introduced new, vague and unknown criteria at the stage of the evaluation of the offers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant introduced new, vague and unknown criteria at the stage of the evaluation of the offers.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/33

---

Action brought on 31 December 2020 — The Floow v Commission

(Case T-765/20)

(2021/C 88/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Floow Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Howard, Barrister, and J. Berry, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in whole or part, the decision of the Commission C(2020) 8138 final, dated 17 November 2020, ordering the recovery of Horizon 2020 grant monies amounting to EUR 161 990,80 plus interest, in respect of the audited period, and set aside the debit note referred to in Article 1 of the decision; or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in whole or part, the decision of the Commission C(2020) 8138 final, dated 17 November 2020, ordering the recovery of Horizon 2020 grant monies amounting to EUR 161 990,80 plus interest, in respect of the audited period, and set aside the debit note referred to in Article 1 of the decision; or

| — | in the alternative, remit the matter to the Commission to reconsider and restate the lower level of any deduction (if any) that may properly arise in light of the principles established by the Court; or |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, remit the matter to the Commission to reconsider and restate the lower level of any deduction (if any) that may properly arise in light of the principles established by the Court; or

| — | in the further alternative, exercise the Court’s own jurisdiction to restate the applicable adjustment that should apply in the light of any changes made to eligible direct and indirect costs, as the General Court considers appropriate; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, exercise the Court’s own jurisdiction to restate the applicable adjustment that should apply in the light of any changes made to eligible direct and indirect costs, as the General Court considers appropriate; 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 that the Commission committed serious errors of law, assessment of fact, appreciation, lack of reasoning and procedural irregularities in assessing the compliance of applicant with the time-recording requirements in the Grant Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed serious errors of law, assessment of fact, appreciation, lack of reasoning and procedural irregularities in assessing the compliance of applicant with the time-recording requirements in the Grant Agreement.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law, appreciation and reasoning in failing to ensure that the adjustments made to the declared costs were fair and proportionate in the light of all the circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law, appreciation and reasoning in failing to ensure that the adjustments made to the declared costs were fair and proportionate in the light of all the circumstances.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/34

---

Action brought on 7 January 2021 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v EEA

(Case T-005/21)

(2021/C 88/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt (Helvoirt, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gebruers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Environment Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action for annulment of the decision of the European Environment Agency (EEA) as notified to the applicant by email of 9 November 2020 refusing to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’) on the correct interpretation of the fifth point of Section C of Annex III to Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (‘the Air Quality Directive’) admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action for annulment of the decision of the European Environment Agency (EEA) as notified to the applicant by email of 9 November 2020 refusing to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’) on the correct interpretation of the fifth point of Section C of Annex III to Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (‘the Air Quality Directive’) admissible and well founded;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | refer the dossier back to the EEA so that it might yet refer the necessary questions to the Court on the correct interpretation of the provision referred to as requested by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the dossier back to the EEA so that it might yet refer the necessary questions to the Court on the correct interpretation of the provision referred to as requested by the applicant;

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

—

order the EEA to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23 of the Air Quality Directive and of Section C of Annex III to that directive, infringement of Article 267 TFEU, infringement of Articles 1 and 9 of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Aarhus Convention’), infringement of Article 10 of 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, and infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 401/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network, in so far as the EEA refuses to refer the necessary questions to the Court on the correct interpretation of the Air Quality Directive.






  — | Under the legal norms cited, the EEA was obliged to refer questions to the Court. The EEA’s course of action, and therefore the contested decision, are contrary to Articles 1 and 9 of the Aarhus Convention. By virtue of Article 1 of that convention, access to justice in environmental matters must be guaranteed at Community level. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23 of the Air Quality Directive and of Section C of Annex III to that directive, infringement of Article 267 TFEU, infringement of Articles 1 and 9 of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Aarhus Convention’), infringement of Article 10 of 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, and infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 401/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network, in so far as the EEA refuses to refer the necessary questions to the Court on the correct interpretation of the Air Quality Directive.

—

Under the legal norms cited, the EEA was obliged to refer questions to the Court. The EEA’s course of action, and therefore the contested decision, are contrary to Articles 1 and 9 of the Aarhus Convention. By virtue of Article 1 of that convention, access to justice in environmental matters must be guaranteed at Community level.

| — | The EEA specifically has the aim of providing objective, reliable and comparable information on the environment at European level on the basis of which the measures necessary for protecting the environment can then be taken. This means that the EEA must be able to give correct and legally binding advice on maximum distance from the kerbside as provided for in the fifth point of Section C of Annex III to the Air Quality Directive, which is not possible in this case without referring the necessary questions to the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EEA specifically has the aim of providing objective, reliable and comparable information on the environment at European level on the basis of which the measures necessary for protecting the environment can then be taken. This means that the EEA must be able to give correct and legally binding advice on maximum distance from the kerbside as provided for in the fifth point of Section C of Annex III to the Air Quality Directive, which is not possible in this case without referring the necessary questions to the Court.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 47 and 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and infringement of Article 191 TFEU in so far as the EEA is standing in the way of the right to an effective remedy within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 47 and 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and infringement of Article 191 TFEU in so far as the EEA is standing in the way of the right to an effective remedy within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 267 TFEU in so far as the EEA instead of the Court ruled that the questions referred by the applicant manifestly do not require an answer. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 267 TFEU in so far as the EEA instead of the Court ruled that the questions referred by the applicant manifestly do not require an answer.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/35

---

Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)

(Case T-26/21)

(2021/C 88/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: I. Junkar, I. Fowler, M. Petersenn and B. Lüthge, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland)

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 THINK DIFFERENT — European Union trade mark No 671 321

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2020 in Case R 2011/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/36

---

Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)

(Case T-27/21)

(2021/C 88/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: I. Junkar, I. Fowler, M. Petersenn and B. Lüthge, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland)

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 THINK DIFFERENT — European Union trade mark No 845 461

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2020 in Case R 2012/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/37

---

Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)

(Case T-28/21)

(2021/C 88/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: I. Junkar, I. Fowler, M. Petersenn and B. Lüthge, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland)

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 THINK DIFFERENT — European Union trade mark No 4 415 063

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2020 in Case R 2013/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/37

---

Action brought on 22 January 2021 — Daw v EUIPO (Muresko)

(Case T-32/21)

(2021/C 88/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Muresko — EU trade mark No 15 465 719

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 in Case R 1686/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to enter, in respect of the applicant’s EU trade mark No 15 465 719 Muresko, the seniority of the national marks PL No 108 756 (date of registration: 4 April 1996) and DE No 981 144 (day of registration: 24 February 1978); |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to enter, in respect of the applicant’s EU trade mark No 15 465 719 Muresko, the seniority of the national marks PL No 108 756 (date of registration: 4 April 1996) and DE No 981 144 (day of registration: 24 February 1978);

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 40 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 40 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/38

---

Action brought on 26 January 2021 — QD v Parliament

(Case T-41/21)

(2021/C 88/51)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: QD (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in its entirety the decision of the Quaestors of the European Parliament of 11 November 2020, communicated to the applicant on 16 November 2020, which definitively confirmed the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 18 May 2020, which, in turn, confirmed the communication of 11 July 2019, adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the European Parliament, concerning the fixing of the applicant’s retirement pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in its entirety the decision of the Quaestors of the European Parliament of 11 November 2020, communicated to the applicant on 16 November 2020, which definitively confirmed the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 18 May 2020, which, in turn, confirmed the communication of 11 July 2019, adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the European Parliament, concerning the fixing of the applicant’s retirement pension rights;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present proceedings seeks the annulment, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, of the decision of the Quaestors of the European Parliament of 11 November 2020, communicated to the applicant on 16 November 2020, which definitively confirmed the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 18 May 2020, which, in turn, confirmed the communication of 11 July 2019, adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the European Parliament, concerning the fixing of the applicant’s retirement pension rights following the adoption of Deliberazione n. 14/2018 dell’Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati italiana (Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest infringement of the general principles of EU law, in particular the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty, the protection of the right to property, the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment. In addition, the applicant claims that the communication definitively confirmed by the contested decision, which claims to implement at EU level the new decision of the Italian Chamber of Deputies without providing any reasonable justification, is manifestly unreasonable. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest infringement of the general principles of EU law, in particular the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty, the protection of the right to property, the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment. In addition, the applicant claims that the communication definitively confirmed by the contested decision, which claims to implement at EU level the new decision of the Italian Chamber of Deputies without providing any reasonable justification, is manifestly unreasonable.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. That provision is a transitional measure; such measures are, by definition, rules bringing an expired system to a close, their purpose being to protect the legal situations governed by the rules that preceded them. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. That provision is a transitional measure; such measures are, by definition, rules bringing an expired system to a close, their purpose being to protect the legal situations governed by the rules that preceded them.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of various procedural requirements, with reference being made to the following in particular: the determination of the correct legal basis of the communication definitively confirmed by the contested decision; the competence of the Head of Unit who adopted the measure; and a failure to state reasons. The applicant claims that the communication is based on a provision that has now been repealed and that, as it is categorised as a measure of extraordinary administration, it should have been adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament. Moreover, there is no statement of reasons in the communication definitively confirmed by the contested decision, nor is reference made in that communication to a document that might contain those reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of various procedural requirements, with reference being made to the following in particular: the determination of the correct legal basis of the communication definitively confirmed by the contested decision; the competence of the Head of Unit who adopted the measure; and a failure to state reasons. The applicant claims that the communication is based on a provision that has now been repealed and that, as it is categorised as a measure of extraordinary administration, it should have been adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament. Moreover, there is no statement of reasons in the communication definitively confirmed by the contested decision, nor is reference made in that communication to a document that might contain those reasons.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/39

---

Action brought on 27 January 2021 — Ciano Trading & Services CT & S and Others v Commission

(Case T-45/21)

(2021/C 88/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Ciano Trading & Services CT & S SpA (Fiumicino, Italy), Silvia Brizio (Venaria Reale, Italy), Laurence André (Grivegnée, Belgium), Lidia Pacitti (Neder-over-Heembeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Van Besien and D. Gillet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare admissible the present request for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible the present request for annulment;

| — | declare the present request for annulment to be well founded and, accordingly, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present request for annulment to be well founded and, accordingly, annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment of the Commission decision of 20 November 2020 annulling tendering procedure No OIB/2019/CPN/039 entitled ‘Sustainable restoration for the European Commission in Brussels and its surroundings’, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. The applicants claim that before the adoption of the contested decision, the Commission gave them precise assurances that, first, a new concession contract covering all the lots, A, B and C, would be concluded from January 2021 onwards within the framework of the public procurement procedure No OIB/2019/CPN/0039, secondly, the concession contract regarding the services relating to lots A and C, actually provided by the applicants, would, in the event of delay in public procurement procedure No OIB/2019/CPN/0039, be extended until the selection by the Commission of a new service provider who would be responsible for carrying out the said services and, thirdly, the workers assigned to the services relating to lots A and C would be transferred to the new service provider in application of collective labour agreement No 32 bis.
  Such precise assurances, given barely a few days before the contested decision was sent to Ciano, created well-founded expectations on the part of the applicants that the workers assigned to the services relating to lots A and C would, in any event, be transferred to the new service provider.
  However, by adopting the contested decision, which cancelled outright public procurement procedure No OIB/2019/CPN/0039, without extending the concession contract relating to lots A and C, the Commission has precluded the transfer of those workers, given that no new service provider will be selected in the near future, and has adopted a position radically opposed to the assurances it had given.
  The applicants therefore consider that by adopting the contested decision in such a context, the Commission infringed the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. The applicants claim that before the adoption of the contested decision, the Commission gave them precise assurances that, first, a new concession contract covering all the lots, A, B and C, would be concluded from January 2021 onwards within the framework of the public procurement procedure No OIB/2019/CPN/0039, secondly, the concession contract regarding the services relating to lots A and C, actually provided by the applicants, would, in the event of delay in public procurement procedure No OIB/2019/CPN/0039, be extended until the selection by the Commission of a new service provider who would be responsible for carrying out the said services and, thirdly, the workers assigned to the services relating to lots A and C would be transferred to the new service provider in application of collective labour agreement No 32 bis.

Such precise assurances, given barely a few days before the contested decision was sent to Ciano, created well-founded expectations on the part of the applicants that the workers assigned to the services relating to lots A and C would, in any event, be transferred to the new service provider.

However, by adopting the contested decision, which cancelled outright public procurement procedure No OIB/2019/CPN/0039, without extending the concession contract relating to lots A and C, the Commission has precluded the transfer of those workers, given that no new service provider will be selected in the near future, and has adopted a position radically opposed to the assurances it had given.

The applicants therefore consider that by adopting the contested decision in such a context, the Commission infringed the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition on abuse of rights. The applicants consider in that regard that by adopting the contested decision, the Commission abused its right to withdraw the public procurement procedure, in that its real objective was to circumvent the application of collective labour agreement No 32 bis, in order to prevent the new service provider from having the workers assigned to the services relating to lots A and C transferred to it. The Commission has, moreover, on a number of occasions since the adoption of the contested decision, acted in bad faith towards the applicants, in particular when it stated, in a letter, that the concession contract is silent on the subject of the employees of Ciano being taken on by a possible new concessionaire and when it stated that the collective agreement 32 bis was not applicable, even though the concession contract makes express reference to it, in a provision entitled ‘conventional transfer’, under the section relating to personnel.
  The applicants therefore consider that by adopting the contested decision in such a context, the Commission infringed the prohibition on abuse of rights. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition on abuse of rights. The applicants consider in that regard that by adopting the contested decision, the Commission abused its right to withdraw the public procurement procedure, in that its real objective was to circumvent the application of collective labour agreement No 32 bis, in order to prevent the new service provider from having the workers assigned to the services relating to lots A and C transferred to it. The Commission has, moreover, on a number of occasions since the adoption of the contested decision, acted in bad faith towards the applicants, in particular when it stated, in a letter, that the concession contract is silent on the subject of the employees of Ciano being taken on by a possible new concessionaire and when it stated that the collective agreement 32 bis was not applicable, even though the concession contract makes express reference to it, in a provision entitled ‘conventional transfer’, under the section relating to personnel.

The applicants therefore consider that by adopting the contested decision in such a context, the Commission infringed the prohibition on abuse of rights.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/40

---

Action brought on 26 January 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Yajun (PREMILITY)

(Case T-46/21)

(2021/C 88/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Liu Yajun (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark PREMILITY — Application for registration No 17 899 016

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 November 2020 in Case R 881/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the opponent’s appeal, the Board thereby confirms the Opposition Division’s decision in opposition proceedings B 3 065 346 granting EU trade mark No 17 899 016 PREMILITY (figurative) for the goods in Classes 11, 21, 22 and 28 for which registration was sought; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the opponent’s appeal, the Board thereby confirms the Opposition Division’s decision in opposition proceedings B 3 065 346 granting EU trade mark No 17 899 016 PREMILITY (figurative) for the goods in Classes 11, 21, 22 and 28 for which registration was sought;

| — | order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the case-law established in the judgment of 11 March 2003, C-40/01, Ansul, EU:C:2003:145. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the case-law established in the judgment of 11 March 2003, C-40/01, Ansul, EU:C:2003:145.

| — | Inconsistency of the decision with and, therefore, infringement of, the case-law established in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 June 2020 in Case C-115/19 P, China Construction Bank v EUIPO (C-115/19 P, EU:C:2020:469) and in the judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020, Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (We IntelliGence the World and Others) (T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T - 98/19, EU:T:2020:231). |
| --- | --- |

—

Inconsistency of the decision with and, therefore, infringement of, the case-law established in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 June 2020 in Case C-115/19 P, China Construction Bank v EUIPO (C-115/19 P, EU:C:2020:469) and in the judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020, Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (We IntelliGence the World and Others) (T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T - 98/19, EU:T:2020:231).

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/41

---

Action brought on 27 January 2021 — Cepewa v EUIPO — Out of the blue (LIEBLINGSMENSCH)

(Case T-47/21)

(2021/C 88/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cepewa GmbH (Karben, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark LIEBLINGSMENSCH — EU trade mark No 16 566 531

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2020 in Case R 918/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (d) of Regulation No (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (d) of Regulation No (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/41

---

Action brought on 27 January 2021– Cepewa v EUIPO — Out of the blue (Lieblingsmensch)

(Case T-48/21)

(2021/C 88/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cepewa GmbH (Karben, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Lieblingsmensch — EU trade mark No 16 581 332

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 in Case R 917/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (d) of Regulation No (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (d) of Regulation No (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/42

---

Action brought on 29 January 2021 — OHB System v Commission

(Case T-54/21)

(2021/C 88/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: OHB System AG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: W. Würfel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision not to award the applicant the contract put out for tender in procurement procedure 2018/S 091-206089 and the decision awarding the contract put out for tender in procurement procedure 2018/S 091-206089 to competitors; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision not to award the applicant the contract put out for tender in procurement procedure 2018/S 091-206089 and the decision awarding the contract put out for tender in procurement procedure 2018/S 091-206089 to competitors;

| — | order the defendant to produce the tendering documentation and allow the applicant full access to the documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to produce the tendering documentation and allow the applicant full access to the documents;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: mandatory exclusion of a competitor.






  — | The defendant should have excluded the competitor to which the contract was awarded from the procurement procedure. A senior employee of the applicant moved into a senior position at the competitor during the procurement procedure. He had knowledge of the content and bases of the applicant’s tender and was nevertheless involved in the competitor’s tender. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

—

The defendant should have excluded the competitor to which the contract was awarded from the procurement procedure. A senior employee of the applicant moved into a senior position at the competitor during the procurement procedure. He had knowledge of the content and bases of the applicant’s tender and was nevertheless involved in the competitor’s tender.

| — | There are therefore grounds for exclusion based on an anti-competitive agreement and an attempt to obtain confidential information (Article 136(1)(c)(ii) and (v) and Article 136(2) and (4) of the Financial Regulation). The defendant unlawfully failed to explain these grounds for exclusion and exclude the competitor. |
| --- | --- |

—

There are therefore grounds for exclusion based on an anti-competitive agreement and an attempt to obtain confidential information (Article 136(1)(c)(ii) and (v) and Article 136(2) and (4) of the Financial Regulation). The defendant unlawfully failed to explain these grounds for exclusion and exclude the competitor.

| — | There is also an infringement of the procurement law principle of equal treatment, specifically the principle of the secrecy of competition. In accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, tenders that have not been submitted autonomously and independently of other tenders cannot be taken into account. |
| --- | --- |

—

There is also an infringement of the procurement law principle of equal treatment, specifically the principle of the secrecy of competition. In accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, tenders that have not been submitted autonomously and independently of other tenders cannot be taken into account.

| 2. | Second plea in law: abnormally low tender.






  — | The defendant failed to comply with the provisions regarding abnormally low tenders. It should have examined the competitor’s bid and, if there was no satisfactory explanation for the low tender, should have excluded it. The competitor’s offer price was considerably lower than that of the applicant and the other tenderers. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

—

The defendant failed to comply with the provisions regarding abnormally low tenders. It should have examined the competitor’s bid and, if there was no satisfactory explanation for the low tender, should have excluded it. The competitor’s offer price was considerably lower than that of the applicant and the other tenderers.

| 3. | Third plea in law: error of assessment in the tender evaluation.






  — | The tender evaluation infringes the procurement law principles of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination (Article 160(1) of the Financial Regulation). The evaluation is not legally tenable even when account is taken of a contracting authority’s margin of discretion. It is based on a number of incorrect factual assumptions and unreasonable and arbitrary considerations regarding alleged ‘weak points’ in the applicant’s tender. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

—

The tender evaluation infringes the procurement law principles of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination (Article 160(1) of the Financial Regulation). The evaluation is not legally tenable even when account is taken of a contracting authority’s margin of discretion. It is based on a number of incorrect factual assumptions and unreasonable and arbitrary considerations regarding alleged ‘weak points’ in the applicant’s tender.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: the defendant’s decision was not autonomous.






  — | The defendant failed to comply with its obligation to arrive at an autonomous decision on the tenders submitted. It is not permissible merely to reconfirm the evaluation outcome in the preparatory TEB Evaluation Report drawn up by the ESA. This is particularly so in the event of doubts as to the lawfulness of the evaluation and in the case of procurement decisions which are associated with such high costs. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

—

The defendant failed to comply with its obligation to arrive at an autonomous decision on the tenders submitted. It is not permissible merely to reconfirm the evaluation outcome in the preparatory TEB Evaluation Report drawn up by the ESA. This is particularly so in the event of doubts as to the lawfulness of the evaluation and in the case of procurement decisions which are associated with such high costs.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/43

---

Action brought on 27 January 2021 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-57/21)

(2021/C 88/57)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as it concerns Hungary and excludes area-related aid for the financial year 2018 from EU funding because an insufficient number of on-the-spot checks were carried out. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as it concerns Hungary and excludes area-related aid for the financial year 2018 from EU funding because an insufficient number of on-the-spot checks were carried out.

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

According to the applicant, the Commission misinterpreted the phrase ‘the competent authority shall appropriately increase the percentage of beneficiaries to be checked on-the-spot in the following year’ in Article 35 of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014 (2) and, on the basis of that misinterpretation, developed a wrongful practice. In the applicant’s view, the exclusion is based on the fact that, in its working documents, the Commission considers itself bound by an interpretation that is technically incorrect and not in accordance with that provision of the regulation.

By adopting the working documents, the Commission effectively deprived the Member States of their power to determine for themselves the percentage of additional beneficiaries that they consider should be subjected to on-the-spot checks. The contested exclusion is unlawful because, contrary to the provisions of the regulation, the Commission specifically determines, using a specific calculation method, the only figure for the increase in the percentage of checks considered acceptable. Furthermore, that determination lacks a technical basis, as the Commission does not take into account the differences between the Member States’ checks and their efficiency.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 390, p. 10.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69).

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/44

---

Action brought on 1 February 2021 — Precisis v EUIPO — Easee (EASEE)

(Case T-66/21)

(2021/C 88/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Precisis AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Easee BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark EASEE — Application for registration No 15 514 706

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2020 in Case R 2948/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal in the event that it intervenes in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal in the event that it intervenes in the proceedings.

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.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/45

---

Action brought on 1 February 2021 — ultra air v EUIPO — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international)

(Case T-67/21)

(2021/C 88/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (Haan, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘ultrafilter international’ — European Union trade mark No 1 121 839

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2020 in Case R 271/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH, should it intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH, should it intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 67 in conjunction with Article 63(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 67 in conjunction with Article 63(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/45

---

Order of the General Court of 22 January 2021 — ECSEL Joint Undertaking v Personal Health Institute International

(Case T-64/19) (1)

(2021/C 88/60)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/46

---

Order of the General Court of 28 January 2021 — Global Steel Wire and Others v Commission

(Case T-545/19) (1)

(2021/C 88/61)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 23.9.2019.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/46

---

Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Hub Culture v EUIPO — PayPal (VEN)

(Case T-16/20) (1)

(2021/C 88/62)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/46

---

Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — JD v EIB

(Case T-166/20) (1)

(2021/C 88/63)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/46

---

Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Bigben Connected v EUIPO — Forsee Power (FORCE POWER)

(Case T-478/20) (1)

(2021/C 88/64)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.

---