# Official Journal C 357/6 Se

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 357 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 646 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 357

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 646 September 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2021/C 357/01 | 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 357/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2021/C 357/02 | Case C-103/19: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 24 de Madrid — Spain) — Sindicato Único de Sanidad e Higiene (SUSH) de la Comunidad de Madrid, Sindicato de Sanidad de Madrid de la Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT) v Consejería de Sanidad de la Comunidad de Madrid (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 5(1) — Successive fixed-term employment contracts in the public health sector — Concept of objective reasons — Concept of equivalent legal measures to prevent abuse — Substitution of the status of occasional regulated staff for that of interim regulated staff — Permanent need for temporary regulated staff) | 2 |
| 2021/C 357/03 | Case C-268/19: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Orense — Spain) — UP v Banco Santander SA, formerly Banco Pastor SAU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Mortgage loan agreement — Unfair terms — Term limiting the variability of the interest rate (so-called floor clause) — Novation agreement — No binding character) | 3 |
| 2021/C 357/04 | Case C-198/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — MN, DN, JN, ZN v X Bank S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 2(b) — Concept of consumer — Mortgage loan drawn up in a foreign currency — Articles 3 and 4 — Assessment of the unfairness of a contractual term) | 4 |
| 2021/C 357/05 | Case C-359/20 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 June 2021 — Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Grant agreement — Non-eligible costs — Recovery decision — Action brought by the recipient before the General Court of the European Union on the basis of Article 272 TFEU — Distortion of the facts — Reasonable period of time — Principle of good faith — Legitimate expectations — Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded) | 4 |
| 2021/C 357/06 | Joined Cases C-456/20 P to C-458/20 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 June 2021 — Crédit agricole SA (C-456/20 P), Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (C-457/20 P), CA Consumer Finance (C-458/20 P) v European Central Bank (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Economic and monetary policy — Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Article 18(1) — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Conferral of specific tasks on the European Central Bank (ECB) — Infliction of an administrative financial penalty for breach of prudential requirements — Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Article 26(3) — Own funds requirements — Capital instruments — Issuance of ordinary shares — Classification as Common Equity Tier 1 (CET 1) — No prior authorisation by the competent authority — Negligent breach) | 5 |
| 2021/C 357/07 | Case C-186/21 PPU: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — J.A. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Immigration and asylum policy — International protection — Directive 2013/33/EU — Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) — Detention of applicants for international protection — Applicant detained subject to a return procedure under Directive 2008/115/EC and in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is making the application for international protection merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of the return decision — Objective criteria on which such grounds may be based — Applicant who has already had the opportunity to access the asylum procedure) | 5 |
| 2021/C 357/08 | Case C-329/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 26 May 2021 — DIGI Communications NV v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Hivatala | 6 |
| 2021/C 357/09 | Case C-332/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 27 May 2021 — Quadrant Amroq Beverages SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili | 7 |
| 2021/C 357/10 | Case C-355/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 7 June 2021 — Procter & Gamble International Operations SA v Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp. k. | 8 |
| 2021/C 357/11 | Case C-362/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 June 2021 — Ekofrukt v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Veliko Tarnovo | 9 |
| 2021/C 357/12 | Case C-366/21 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2021 by Maxime Picard against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-769/16, Picard v Commission | 9 |
| 2021/C 357/13 | Case C-374/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 18 June 2021 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) v AB, CD, EF | 10 |
| 2021/C 357/14 | Case C-383/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2021 — Société de Logement de Service Public (SLSP) Sambre et Biesme, SCRL v Société wallonne du logement | 11 |
| 2021/C 357/15 | Case C-384/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2021 — Municipality of Farciennes v Société wallonne du logement | 12 |
| 2021/C 357/16 | Case C-397/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 29 June 2021 — HUMDA Magyar Autó-Motorsport Fejlesztési Ügynökség Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága | 13 |
| 2021/C 357/17 | Case C-404/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Asti (Italy) lodged on 30 June 2021 — WP v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale, Repubblica italiana | 14 |
| 2021/C 357/18 | Case C-407/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 2 July 2021 — Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir), Consommation, logement et cadre de vie (CLCV) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance | 14 |
| 2021/C 357/19 | Case C-103/20: Order of the President of the Court of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — RC v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira | 15 |
| 2021/C 357/20 | Case C-104/20: Order of the President of the Court of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles — Belgium) — SD v Habitations sociales du Roman Païs SCRL, TE, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Régie des Quartiers de Tubize ASBL | 15 |
| 2021/C 357/21 | Case C-392/20: Order of the President of the Court of 4 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Mokotowa w Warszawie — Poland) — European Chemicals Agency v Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej sp. z o.o. | 16 |
| 2021/C 357/22 | Case C-516/20: Order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — JT, NQ v Ryanair DAC | 16 |
| 2021/C 357/23 | Case C-618/20: Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Córdoba — Spain) — ZU, TV v Ryanair Ltd | 16 |
| 2021/C 357/24 | Case C-672/20: Order of the President of the Court of 24 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — L GmbH v FK | 16 |
| 2021/C 357/25 | Case C-76/21: Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Wacker Chemie AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland represented by the Umweltbundesamt | 17 |
| 2021/C 357/26 | Case C-172/21: Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — EF v Deutsche Lufthansa AG | 17 |
| 2021/C 357/27 | Case C-287/21: Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — FC v FTI Touristik GmbH | 17 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 357/28 | Case T-65/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — AI v ECDC (Civil service — ECDC staff — Psychological harassment — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Scope of the duty to provide assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Resignation of the perpetrator of the behaviour complained of — Failure to open a disciplinary procedure — Article 86 of the Staff Regulations — Reply to a request for assistance — Action for annulment — Act adversely affecting an official — Infringement of the right to be heard — No statement of reasons — Denial of access to the investigation report and other documents — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Liability) | 18 |
| 2021/C 357/29 | Case T-164/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — AQ v eu-LISA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Sick leave — Termination of the contract without notice — Article 16 of the CEOS — Article 48(b) of the CEOS — Duty of care — Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Liability — Material harm — Non-material harm — Causal link) | 19 |
| 2021/C 357/30 | Case T-253/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — BG v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Termination of the contract — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Retaliation — Manifest errors of assessment — Liability) | 19 |
| 2021/C 357/31 | Case T-670/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Procedure of appointment to a director’s post — Notice of vacancy — Rejection of the applicant’s application and appointment of another applicant — Obligation to state reasons — Plea of illegality in respect of the measures setting the internal rules of procedure — Irregularity of the recruitment procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Inaccuracy of the information sent to the Appointing Authority — Transparency — Equal treatment — Liability — Material and non-material damage) | 20 |
| 2021/C 357/32 | Case T-716/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine — Interim review — Calculation of the normal value — Selling, general and administrative costs — Sales between related companies — Ordinary course of trade — Single economic entity — Article 2(3), (4) and (6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Export price — Adjustment — Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis — Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Manifest error of assessment — Methodology different from that used in a previous investigation — Article 11(9) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Legitimate expectations — Rights of the defence) | 21 |
| 2021/C 357/33 | Case T-810/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management v EUIPO — Yiwu Dearbody Cosmetics (BODYSECRETS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark BODYSECRETS — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Customary nature — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d), and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d), and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 21 |
| 2021/C 357/34 | Case T-65/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Kneissl Holding v EUIPO — LS 9 (KNEISSL) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark KNEISSL — Partial revocation — No genuine use of the mark — Extent of use — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 10(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Abuse of rights) | 22 |
| 2021/C 357/35 | Case T-119/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — IN v EISMEA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Appraisal — Right to be heard — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Manifest error of assessment — Reasonable time — Liability — Non-material damage) | 23 |
| 2021/C 357/36 | Case T-170/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rochefort v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Burden of proof — Duty to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Error of law — Error of assessment — Proportionality) | 23 |
| 2021/C 357/37 | Case T-171/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rochefort v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Burden of proof — Duty to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Error of law — Error of assessment — Proportionality) | 24 |
| 2021/C 357/38 | Case T-172/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rochefort v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Burden of proof — Duty to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Error of law — Error of assessment — Proportionality) | 24 |
| 2021/C 357/39 | Case T-357/20: Order of the General Court of 9 July 2021 — Kozhuvchanka uvoz-izvoz Kavadarci v EUIPO (NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Geographical origin — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 25 |
| 2021/C 357/40 | Case T-352/21: Action brought on 13 June 2021 — Oi Dromoi tis Elias v Commission | 26 |
| 2021/C 357/41 | Case T-361/21: Action brought on 22 June 2021 — Syndesmos Tyrokomon Kyprou and Others v Commission | 26 |
| 2021/C 357/42 | Case T-416/21: Action brought on 11 July 2021 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT) | 27 |
| 2021/C 357/43 | Case T-417/21: Action brought on 11 July 2021 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT) | 28 |
| 2021/C 357/44 | Case T-423/21: Action brought on 13 July 2021 — Gioioso v EUIPO — Maxi Di (MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT) | 29 |
| 2021/C 357/45 | Case T-429/21: Action brought on 14 July 2021 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Cantina Sociale Tollo (ALDIANO) | 29 |
| 2021/C 357/46 | Case T-430/21: Action brought on 15 July 2021 — Apex Brands v EUIPO — SARTORIUS Werkzeuge (SATA) | 30 |
| 2021/C 357/47 | Case T-432/21: Action brought on 16 July 2021 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU) | 31 |
| 2021/C 357/48 | Case T-433/21: Action brought on 16 July 2021 — VITRONIC v EUIPO (Enforcement Trailer) | 31 |
| 2021/C 357/49 | Case T-438/21: Action brought on 15 July 2021 — TL v Commission | 32 |
| 2021/C 357/50 | Case T-439/21: Action brought on 20 July 2021 — Anglofranchise v EUIPO — Bugrey (BOY LONDON) | 33 |
| 2021/C 357/51 | Case T-444/21: Action brought on 23 July 2021 — Ryanair v Commission | 34 |
| 2021/C 357/52 | Case T-552/20: Order of the General Court of 2 July 2021 — MD v Commission | 34 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2021/C 357/02

Case C-103/19: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 24 de Madrid — Spain) — Sindicato Único de Sanidad e Higiene (SUSH) de la Comunidad de Madrid, Sindicato de Sanidad de Madrid de la Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT) v Consejería de Sanidad de la Comunidad de Madrid (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 5(1) — Successive fixed-term employment contracts in the public health sector — Concept of objective reasons — Concept of equivalent legal measures to prevent abuse — Substitution of the status of occasional regulated staff for that of interim regulated staff — Permanent need for temporary regulated staff)

2

2021/C 357/03

Case C-268/19: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Orense — Spain) — UP v Banco Santander SA, formerly Banco Pastor SAU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Mortgage loan agreement — Unfair terms — Term limiting the variability of the interest rate (so-called floor clause) — Novation agreement — No binding character)

3

2021/C 357/04

Case C-198/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — MN, DN, JN, ZN v X Bank S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 2(b) — Concept of consumer — Mortgage loan drawn up in a foreign currency — Articles 3 and 4 — Assessment of the unfairness of a contractual term)

4

2021/C 357/05

Case C-359/20 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 June 2021 — Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Grant agreement — Non-eligible costs — Recovery decision — Action brought by the recipient before the General Court of the European Union on the basis of Article 272 TFEU — Distortion of the facts — Reasonable period of time — Principle of good faith — Legitimate expectations — Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded)

4

2021/C 357/06

Joined Cases C-456/20 P to C-458/20 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 June 2021 — Crédit agricole SA (C-456/20 P), Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (C-457/20 P), CA Consumer Finance (C-458/20 P) v European Central Bank (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Economic and monetary policy — Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Article 18(1) — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Conferral of specific tasks on the European Central Bank (ECB) — Infliction of an administrative financial penalty for breach of prudential requirements — Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Article 26(3) — Own funds requirements — Capital instruments — Issuance of ordinary shares — Classification as Common Equity Tier 1 (CET 1) — No prior authorisation by the competent authority — Negligent breach)

5

2021/C 357/07

Case C-186/21 PPU: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — J.A. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Immigration and asylum policy — International protection — Directive 2013/33/EU — Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) — Detention of applicants for international protection — Applicant detained subject to a return procedure under Directive 2008/115/EC and in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is making the application for international protection merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of the return decision — Objective criteria on which such grounds may be based — Applicant who has already had the opportunity to access the asylum procedure)

5

2021/C 357/08

Case C-329/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 26 May 2021 — DIGI Communications NV v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Hivatala

6

2021/C 357/09

Case C-332/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 27 May 2021 — Quadrant Amroq Beverages SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

7

2021/C 357/10

Case C-355/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 7 June 2021 — Procter & Gamble International Operations SA v Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp. k.

8

2021/C 357/11

Case C-362/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 June 2021 — Ekofrukt v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Veliko Tarnovo

9

2021/C 357/12

Case C-366/21 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2021 by Maxime Picard against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-769/16, Picard v Commission

9

2021/C 357/13

Case C-374/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 18 June 2021 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) v AB, CD, EF

10

2021/C 357/14

Case C-383/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2021 — Société de Logement de Service Public (SLSP) Sambre et Biesme, SCRL v Société wallonne du logement

11

2021/C 357/15

Case C-384/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2021 — Municipality of Farciennes v Société wallonne du logement

12

2021/C 357/16

Case C-397/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 29 June 2021 — HUMDA Magyar Autó-Motorsport Fejlesztési Ügynökség Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

13

2021/C 357/17

Case C-404/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Asti (Italy) lodged on 30 June 2021 — WP v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale, Repubblica italiana

14

2021/C 357/18

Case C-407/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 2 July 2021 — Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir), Consommation, logement et cadre de vie (CLCV) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance

14

2021/C 357/19

Case C-103/20: Order of the President of the Court of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — RC v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

15

2021/C 357/20

Case C-104/20: Order of the President of the Court of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles — Belgium) — SD v Habitations sociales du Roman Païs SCRL, TE, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Régie des Quartiers de Tubize ASBL

15

2021/C 357/21

Case C-392/20: Order of the President of the Court of 4 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Mokotowa w Warszawie — Poland) — European Chemicals Agency v Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej sp. z o.o.

16

2021/C 357/22

Case C-516/20: Order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — JT, NQ v Ryanair DAC

16

2021/C 357/23

Case C-618/20: Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Córdoba — Spain) — ZU, TV v Ryanair Ltd

16

2021/C 357/24

Case C-672/20: Order of the President of the Court of 24 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — L GmbH v FK

16

2021/C 357/25

Case C-76/21: Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Wacker Chemie AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland represented by the Umweltbundesamt

17

2021/C 357/26

Case C-172/21: Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — EF v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

17

2021/C 357/27

Case C-287/21: Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — FC v FTI Touristik GmbH

17

General Court

2021/C 357/28

Case T-65/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — AI v ECDC (Civil service — ECDC staff — Psychological harassment — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Scope of the duty to provide assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Resignation of the perpetrator of the behaviour complained of — Failure to open a disciplinary procedure — Article 86 of the Staff Regulations — Reply to a request for assistance — Action for annulment — Act adversely affecting an official — Infringement of the right to be heard — No statement of reasons — Denial of access to the investigation report and other documents — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Liability)

18

2021/C 357/29

Case T-164/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — AQ v eu-LISA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Sick leave — Termination of the contract without notice — Article 16 of the CEOS — Article 48(b) of the CEOS — Duty of care — Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Liability — Material harm — Non-material harm — Causal link)

19

2021/C 357/30

Case T-253/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — BG v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Termination of the contract — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Retaliation — Manifest errors of assessment — Liability)

19

2021/C 357/31

Case T-670/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Procedure of appointment to a director’s post — Notice of vacancy — Rejection of the applicant’s application and appointment of another applicant — Obligation to state reasons — Plea of illegality in respect of the measures setting the internal rules of procedure — Irregularity of the recruitment procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Inaccuracy of the information sent to the Appointing Authority — Transparency — Equal treatment — Liability — Material and non-material damage)

20

2021/C 357/32

Case T-716/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine — Interim review — Calculation of the normal value — Selling, general and administrative costs — Sales between related companies — Ordinary course of trade — Single economic entity — Article 2(3), (4) and (6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Export price — Adjustment — Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis — Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Manifest error of assessment — Methodology different from that used in a previous investigation — Article 11(9) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Legitimate expectations — Rights of the defence)

21

2021/C 357/33

Case T-810/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management v EUIPO — Yiwu Dearbody Cosmetics (BODYSECRETS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark BODYSECRETS — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Customary nature — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d), and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d), and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001))

21

2021/C 357/34

Case T-65/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Kneissl Holding v EUIPO — LS 9 (KNEISSL) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark KNEISSL — Partial revocation — No genuine use of the mark — Extent of use — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 10(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Abuse of rights)

22

2021/C 357/35

Case T-119/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — IN v EISMEA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Appraisal — Right to be heard — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Manifest error of assessment — Reasonable time — Liability — Non-material damage)

23

2021/C 357/36

Case T-170/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rochefort v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Burden of proof — Duty to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Error of law — Error of assessment — Proportionality)

23

2021/C 357/37

Case T-171/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rochefort v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Burden of proof — Duty to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Error of law — Error of assessment — Proportionality)

24

2021/C 357/38

Case T-172/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rochefort v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Burden of proof — Duty to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Error of law — Error of assessment — Proportionality)

24

2021/C 357/39

Case T-357/20: Order of the General Court of 9 July 2021 — Kozhuvchanka uvoz-izvoz Kavadarci v EUIPO (NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Geographical origin — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

25

2021/C 357/40

Case T-352/21: Action brought on 13 June 2021 — Oi Dromoi tis Elias v Commission

26

2021/C 357/41

Case T-361/21: Action brought on 22 June 2021 — Syndesmos Tyrokomon Kyprou and Others v Commission

26

2021/C 357/42

Case T-416/21: Action brought on 11 July 2021 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)

27

2021/C 357/43

Case T-417/21: Action brought on 11 July 2021 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)

28

2021/C 357/44

Case T-423/21: Action brought on 13 July 2021 — Gioioso v EUIPO — Maxi Di (MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT)

29

2021/C 357/45

Case T-429/21: Action brought on 14 July 2021 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Cantina Sociale Tollo (ALDIANO)

29

2021/C 357/46

Case T-430/21: Action brought on 15 July 2021 — Apex Brands v EUIPO — SARTORIUS Werkzeuge (SATA)

30

2021/C 357/47

Case T-432/21: Action brought on 16 July 2021 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU)

31

2021/C 357/48

Case T-433/21: Action brought on 16 July 2021 — VITRONIC v EUIPO (Enforcement Trailer)

31

2021/C 357/49

Case T-438/21: Action brought on 15 July 2021 — TL v Commission

32

2021/C 357/50

Case T-439/21: Action brought on 20 July 2021 — Anglofranchise v EUIPO — Bugrey (BOY LONDON)

33

2021/C 357/51

Case T-444/21: Action brought on 23 July 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

34

2021/C 357/52

Case T-552/20: Order of the General Court of 2 July 2021 — MD v Commission

34

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/1

---

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

(2021/C 357/01)

Last publication

OJ C 349, 30.8.2021

Past publications

OJ C 338, 23.8.2021

OJ C 329, 16.8.2021

OJ C 320, 9.8.2021

OJ C 310, 2.8.2021

OJ C 297, 26.7.2021

OJ C 289, 19.7.2021

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/2

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 24 de Madrid — Spain) — Sindicato Único de Sanidad e Higiene (SUSH) de la Comunidad de Madrid, Sindicato de Sanidad de Madrid de la Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT) v Consejería de Sanidad de la Comunidad de Madrid

(Case C-103/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 5(1) - Successive fixed-term employment contracts in the public health sector - Concept of ‘objective reasons’ - Concept of ‘equivalent legal measures to prevent abuse’ - Substitution of the status of occasional regulated staff for that of interim regulated staff - Permanent need for temporary regulated staff)

(2021/C 357/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 24 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sindicato Único de Sanidad e Higiene (SUSH) de la Comunidad de Madrid, Sindicato de Sanidad de Madrid de la Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT)

Defendant: Consejería de Sanidad de la Comunidad de Madrid

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is included in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court to assess, in accordance with all the applicable rules of national law, whether national measures providing for the reclassification of a category of temporary staff by replacing the status of occasional regulated staff with that of interim regulated staff, and the possible establishment of those staff following selection procedures designed to fill definitively the posts occupied temporarily by them, constitute adequate measures to prevent and, where appropriate, to penalise abuses resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships or equivalent legal measures, within the meaning of that provision. If this is not the case, it is for that court to ascertain whether there are other effective measures in the applicable national legislation to prevent and penalise such abuses. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is included in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court to assess, in accordance with all the applicable rules of national law, whether national measures providing for the reclassification of a category of temporary staff by replacing the status of occasional regulated staff with that of interim regulated staff, and the possible establishment of those staff following selection procedures designed to fill definitively the posts occupied temporarily by them, constitute adequate measures to prevent and, where appropriate, to penalise abuses resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships or equivalent legal measures, within the meaning of that provision. If this is not the case, it is for that court to ascertain whether there are other effective measures in the applicable national legislation to prevent and penalise such abuses.

| 2. | Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which reserves to staff members having the status of occasional regulated workers the possibility of obtaining the substitution of that status for that of interim regulated staff, where that substitution constitutes an appropriate measure to prevent and, where appropriate, penalise abuses resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships or an equivalent legal measure, within the meaning of that provision, provided that there are other effective measures in the national legal system to prevent and penalise such abuses in respect of fixed-term workers who do not fall within the category of occasional regulated staff, which it is for the national court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which reserves to staff members having the status of occasional regulated workers the possibility of obtaining the substitution of that status for that of interim regulated staff, where that substitution constitutes an appropriate measure to prevent and, where appropriate, penalise abuses resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships or an equivalent legal measure, within the meaning of that provision, provided that there are other effective measures in the national legal system to prevent and penalise such abuses in respect of fixed-term workers who do not fall within the category of occasional regulated staff, which it is for the national court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 23.9.2019.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/3

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Orense — Spain) — UP v Banco Santander SA, formerly Banco Pastor SAU

(Case C-268/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Mortgage loan agreement - Unfair terms - Term limiting the variability of the interest rate (so-called ‘floor’ clause) - Novation agreement - No binding character)

(2021/C 357/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Orense

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UP

Defendant: Banco Santander SA, formerly Banco Pastor SAU

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding a term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, which is capable of being found to be unfair by a court, from being the subject of a novation agreement between that seller or supplier and that consumer, provided that, at the time of conclusion of that novation agreement, the consumer was aware of the non-binding nature of that term and of the consequences arising therefrom, so that his or her adherence to that novation agreement is the result of free and informed consent, which it is for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding a term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, which is capable of being found to be unfair by a court, from being the subject of a novation agreement between that seller or supplier and that consumer, provided that, at the time of conclusion of that novation agreement, the consumer was aware of the non-binding nature of that term and of the consequences arising therefrom, so that his or her adherence to that novation agreement is the result of free and informed consent, which it is for the referring court to verify.

| 2. | Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of transparency incumbent on a seller or supplier under those provisions implies that, when concluding a novation agreement between a seller or supplier and a consumer, the terms of which have not been individually negotiated, which is intended to amend a potentially unfair term of an earlier contract concluded between those same parties, that seller or supplier must provide the consumer with the relevant information enabling him or her to understand the legal consequences for him or her and, in particular, the fact that the original term could possibly have been unfair, which it is for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of transparency incumbent on a seller or supplier under those provisions implies that, when concluding a novation agreement between a seller or supplier and a consumer, the terms of which have not been individually negotiated, which is intended to amend a potentially unfair term of an earlier contract concluded between those same parties, that seller or supplier must provide the consumer with the relevant information enabling him or her to understand the legal consequences for him or her and, in particular, the fact that the original term could possibly have been unfair, which it is for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/4

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — MN, DN, JN, ZN v X Bank S.A.

(Case C-198/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 2(b) - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Mortgage loan drawn up in a foreign currency - Articles 3 and 4 - Assessment of the unfairness of a contractual term)

(2021/C 357/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MN, DN, JN, ZN

Defendant: X Bank S.A.

Intervener: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Re:

All consumers enjoy the protection laid down by Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, not only those who may be regarded as an ‘average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect’.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/4

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 June 2021 — Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission

(Case C-359/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreement - Non-eligible costs - Recovery decision - Action brought by the recipient before the General Court of the European Union on the basis of Article 272 TFEU - Distortion of the facts - Reasonable period of time - Principle of good faith - Legitimate expectations - Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded)

(2021/C 357/05)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (represented by: K. Damis and M. Angelopoulos, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou and E.A. Stamate, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Talanton Anonymi Emporiki — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Talanton Anonymi Emporiki — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/5

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 June 2021 — Crédit agricole SA (C-456/20 P), Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (C-457/20 P), CA Consumer Finance (C-458/20 P) v European Central Bank

(Joined Cases C-456/20 P to C-458/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Economic and monetary policy - Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Article 18(1) - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Conferral of specific tasks on the European Central Bank (ECB) - Infliction of an administrative financial penalty for breach of prudential requirements - Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Article 26(3) - Own funds requirements - Capital instruments - Issuance of ordinary shares - Classification as Common Equity Tier 1 (CET 1) - No prior authorisation by the competent authority - Negligent breach)

(2021/C 357/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Crédit agricole SA (C-456/20 P), Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (C-457/20 P), CA Consumer Finance (C-458/20 P) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, A. Pizzolla and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeals are dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeals are dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Crédit agricole SA, Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank and CA Consumer Finance shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Crédit agricole SA, Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank and CA Consumer Finance shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/5

---

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — J.A. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-186/21 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Immigration and asylum policy - International protection - Directive 2013/33/EU - Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) - Detention of applicants for international protection - Applicant detained subject to a return procedure under Directive 2008/115/EC and in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is making the application for international protection merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of the return decision - Objective criteria on which such grounds may be based - Applicant who has already had the opportunity to access the asylum procedure)

(2021/C 357/07)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J.A.

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the order

Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an applicant for international protection has already had the opportunity to access the asylum procedure constitutes an objective criterion for the purposes of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 26 May 2021 — DIGI Communications NV v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Hivatala

(Case C-329/21)

(2021/C 357/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DIGI Communications NV

Defendant: Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Hivatala

Intervener: Magyar Telekom Nyrt.

Questions referred

| 1. | 1.1 | Can an undertaking be considered a competitor of the undertakings to which a decision of a national regulatory authority falling within the terms of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1) is addressed, where the undertaking in question is registered and operates in another Member State and does not itself provide electronic communications services in the market to which the decision refers, but an undertaking under its direct control is present in the relevant market as a service provider and competes in that market with the undertakings to which the decision is addressed? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

1.1

Can an undertaking be considered a competitor of the undertakings to which a decision of a national regulatory authority falling within the terms of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1) is addressed, where the undertaking in question is registered and operates in another Member State and does not itself provide electronic communications services in the market to which the decision refers, but an undertaking under its direct control is present in the relevant market as a service provider and competes in that market with the undertakings to which the decision is addressed?

| 1.2 | In order to reply to question 1.1, is it necessary to examine whether the parent company that wishes to bring the action forms an economic unit with the undertaking under its control which is present as a competitor in the relevant market? |
| --- | --- |

1.2

In order to reply to question 1.1, is it necessary to examine whether the parent company that wishes to bring the action forms an economic unit with the undertaking under its control which is present as a competitor in the relevant market?

| 2. | 2.1 | Is an auction of rights to use radio frequencies for additional wireless broadband services in support of the roll-out of 5G conducted by a national regulatory authority, falling within the terms of Article 4(1) of the framework directive and Article 7 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), (2) a procedure intended to safeguard competition? Must the decision of the national regulatory authority announcing the outcome of the auction procedure also be considered a procedure intended to safeguard competition in that regard? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

2.1

Is an auction of rights to use radio frequencies for additional wireless broadband services in support of the roll-out of 5G conducted by a national regulatory authority, falling within the terms of Article 4(1) of the framework directive and Article 7 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), (2) a procedure intended to safeguard competition? Must the decision of the national regulatory authority announcing the outcome of the auction procedure also be considered a procedure intended to safeguard competition in that regard?

| 2.2 | If the reply from the Court of Justice to question 2.1 is in the affirmative, is the decision’s objective of safeguarding competition affected by the fact that, in a final decision contained in a separate ruling, the national regulatory authority refused to register the bid submitted by the undertaking that is bringing an action, with the result that that undertaking was unable to take part in the auction procedure and was therefore not an addressee of the decision that determined the outcome of that procedure? |
| --- | --- |

2.2

If the reply from the Court of Justice to question 2.1 is in the affirmative, is the decision’s objective of safeguarding competition affected by the fact that, in a final decision contained in a separate ruling, the national regulatory authority refused to register the bid submitted by the undertaking that is bringing an action, with the result that that undertaking was unable to take part in the auction procedure and was therefore not an addressee of the decision that determined the outcome of that procedure?

| 3. | 3.1 | Must Article 4(1) of the framework directive, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as conferring a right of appeal against a decision by a national regulatory authority on an undertaking only where the position of that undertaking in the market:






  (a) | is directly and genuinely affected by the decision; or |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.

3.1

Must Article 4(1) of the framework directive, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as conferring a right of appeal against a decision by a national regulatory authority on an undertaking only where the position of that undertaking in the market:

(a)

is directly and genuinely affected by the decision; or

| (b) | is shown to be highly likely to be affected by the decision; or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

is shown to be highly likely to be affected by the decision; or

| (c) | may be directly or indirectly affected by the decision? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

may be directly or indirectly affected by the decision?

| 3.2 | Is the fact that the undertaking submitted a bid in the auction procedure, that is to say, that it wished to take part in the procedure but was unable to do so because it did not satisfy the requirements, in itself proof of the effect referred to in question 3.1, or can the court legitimately require the undertaking also to furnish evidence to show that it is affected by the decision? |
| --- | --- |

3.2

Is the fact that the undertaking submitted a bid in the auction procedure, that is to say, that it wished to take part in the procedure but was unable to do so because it did not satisfy the requirements, in itself proof of the effect referred to in question 3.1, or can the court legitimately require the undertaking also to furnish evidence to show that it is affected by the decision?

| 4. | In the light of the replies to questions 1 to 3, must Article 4(1) of the framework directive, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking is an electronic communications provider affected by a decision of the national regulatory authority announcing the outcome of an auction of rights to use radio frequencies for additional wireless broadband services in support of the roll-out of 5G, and therefore has a right of appeal, where that undertaking:






  — | does not carry on an economic activity involving the provision of services in the relevant market, but directly controls an undertaking that provides electronic communications services in that market; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

In the light of the replies to questions 1 to 3, must Article 4(1) of the framework directive, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking is an electronic communications provider affected by a decision of the national regulatory authority announcing the outcome of an auction of rights to use radio frequencies for additional wireless broadband services in support of the roll-out of 5G, and therefore has a right of appeal, where that undertaking:

—

does not carry on an economic activity involving the provision of services in the relevant market, but directly controls an undertaking that provides electronic communications services in that market; and

| — | was denied registration in the auction procedure by a final decision of the national regulatory authority before the decision on the outcome of the contested auction procedure was adopted, thus preventing the undertaking from subsequently taking part in the procedure? |
| --- | --- |

—

was denied registration in the auction procedure by a final decision of the national regulatory authority before the decision on the outcome of the contested auction procedure was adopted, thus preventing the undertaking from subsequently taking part in the procedure?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

(2)  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) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 27 May 2021 — Quadrant Amroq Beverages SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-332/21)

(2021/C 357/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Quadrant Amroq Beverages SRL

Defendant: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from excise duty covers only ethyl alcohol-type goods used for the production of flavours intended, in turn, for the production of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1,2 % volume, or as meaning that that exemption also covers ethyl alcohol-type goods already used for the production of certain favours of that kind which have been or are to be used for the production of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1,2 % volume? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from excise duty covers only ethyl alcohol-type goods used for the production of flavours intended, in turn, for the production of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1,2 % volume, or as meaning that that exemption also covers ethyl alcohol-type goods already used for the production of certain favours of that kind which have been or are to be used for the production of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1,2 % volume?

| 2. | Must Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83/EEC, in the context of the objectives and general scheme of that directive, be interpreted as meaning that, once ethyl alcohol-type goods intended to be marketed in another Member State have already been released for consumption in a first Member State, exempt from excise duty as they are used to obtain flavours intended to be used for the production of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1,2 % volume, the Member State of destination must treat them in an identical manner within its territory? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83/EEC, in the context of the objectives and general scheme of that directive, be interpreted as meaning that, once ethyl alcohol-type goods intended to be marketed in another Member State have already been released for consumption in a first Member State, exempt from excise duty as they are used to obtain flavours intended to be used for the production of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1,2 % volume, the Member State of destination must treat them in an identical manner within its territory?

| 3. | Must Article 27(1)(e) and 27(2)(d) of Directive 92/83/EEC, and the [principles] of effectiveness and [proportionality], be interpreted as authorising a Member State to impose procedural requirements, which make the application of the exemption subject to the user having the status of registered consignee and of authorised warehousekeeper, on the seller of excise goods, despite the fact that the Member State in which those goods were acquired does not impose an obligation relating to the status of tax warehousekeeper on the economic operator which markets them? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 27(1)(e) and 27(2)(d) of Directive 92/83/EEC, and the [principles] of effectiveness and [proportionality], be interpreted as authorising a Member State to impose procedural requirements, which make the application of the exemption subject to the user having the status of registered consignee and of authorised warehousekeeper, on the seller of excise goods, despite the fact that the Member State in which those goods were acquired does not impose an obligation relating to the status of tax warehousekeeper on the economic operator which markets them?

| 4. | In the light of Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83/EEC, do the principles of proportionality and effectiveness, in the context of the objectives and general scheme of that directive, preclude the exemption provided for therein from being denied to the taxable person of a Member State of destination who has received ethyl alcohol-type goods and who relied on the fact that those goods were deemed to be exempt on the basis of an official interpretation of those provisions of that directive by the tax authorities of the Member State of origin, given consistently and over a long period of time and transposed into national law and applied in practice, but which subsequently turns out to be incorrect, in the event that, given the circumstances, it is possible to exclude any possibility of fraud or evasion of excise duty? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the light of Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83/EEC, do the principles of proportionality and effectiveness, in the context of the objectives and general scheme of that directive, preclude the exemption provided for therein from being denied to the taxable person of a Member State of destination who has received ethyl alcohol-type goods and who relied on the fact that those goods were deemed to be exempt on the basis of an official interpretation of those provisions of that directive by the tax authorities of the Member State of origin, given consistently and over a long period of time and transposed into national law and applied in practice, but which subsequently turns out to be incorrect, in the event that, given the circumstances, it is possible to exclude any possibility of fraud or evasion of excise duty?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21, Special edition in Romanian: Chapter 09 Volume 001 P. 152).

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 7 June 2021 — Procter & Gamble International Operations SA v Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp. k.

(Case C-355/21)

(2021/C 357/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Procter & Gamble International Operations SA

Defendant: Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp. k.

Question referred

Must Article 10 of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (1) be interpreted as precluding the interpretation of a provision of national law to the effect that a protection measure in the form of destruction of goods relates only to goods illegally manufactured or illegally marked, and cannot be applied to goods illegally put on the market in the territory of the European Economic Area which cannot be found to have been illegally manufactured or illegally marked?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, Special edition in Polish: Chapter 17 Volume 002 P. 32 — 39).

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 June 2021 — Ekofrukt v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo

(Case C-362/21)

(2021/C 357/11)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ekofrukt EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC to be interpreted as meaning that it is impermissible for an administrative act issued in the form of an electronic document to be declared invalid if it has been signed with an electronic signature which is not a ‘qualified electronic signature’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC to be interpreted as meaning that it is impermissible for an administrative act issued in the form of an electronic document to be declared invalid if it has been signed with an electronic signature which is not a ‘qualified electronic signature’?

| 2. | Is the entry of a ‘qualified electronic signature’ in the certificate issued by the trust service provider sufficient for a finding to be made whether or not an electronic signature is a qualified signature, or must the court establish compliance with Article 26 of and Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the entry of a ‘qualified electronic signature’ in the certificate issued by the trust service provider sufficient for a finding to be made whether or not an electronic signature is a qualified signature, or must the court establish compliance with Article 26 of and Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC?

| 3. | In a case such as that referred to above, in which the provider qualifies the electronic signature as ‘professional’, is that circumstance sufficient to establish that there is no ‘qualified electronic signature’, in the absence of a qualified certificate from the provider, or is it necessary to establish whether the signatures fulfil the requirements for a qualified electronic signature? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In a case such as that referred to above, in which the provider qualifies the electronic signature as ‘professional’, is that circumstance sufficient to establish that there is no ‘qualified electronic signature’, in the absence of a qualified certificate from the provider, or is it necessary to establish whether the signatures fulfil the requirements for a qualified electronic signature?

| 4. | When verifying the compliance of the qualified electronic signature with the requirements of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC, does the fact that the names of the holder of the electronic signature are, instead of being indicated in Cyrillic script as used by the person to identify himself or herself, rather indicated in Latin script constitute an infringement of that regulation, leading to the conclusion that there is no qualified electronic signature? |
| --- | --- |

4.

When verifying the compliance of the qualified electronic signature with the requirements of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC, does the fact that the names of the holder of the electronic signature are, instead of being indicated in Cyrillic script as used by the person to identify himself or herself, rather indicated in Latin script constitute an infringement of that regulation, leading to the conclusion that there is no qualified electronic signature?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ 2014 L 257, p. 73).

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/9

---

Appeal brought on 9 June 2021 by Maxime Picard against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-769/16, Picard v Commission

(Case C-366/21 P)

(2021/C 357/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Maxime Picard (represented by: S. Orlandi, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 March 2021 in Case T-769/16, Picard v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 March 2021 in Case T-769/16, Picard v Commission;

| — | annul the decision setting, in advance, certain elements of the appellant’s pension rights or the failure to adopt such a decision required by the Staff Regulations as a result of the message, which was sent to him on 4 January 2016 by the case handler in Section ‘Pensions’, informing him, in response to his query of the same date, that the calculation of his pension rights had been modified following his re-employment in Function Group II at 1 June 2014, that his pensionable age had become 66 years old, and that the accrual rate of his pension rights would be 1,8 % from 1 June 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision setting, in advance, certain elements of the appellant’s pension rights or the failure to adopt such a decision required by the Staff Regulations as a result of the message, which was sent to him on 4 January 2016 by the case handler in Section ‘Pensions’, informing him, in response to his query of the same date, that the calculation of his pension rights had been modified following his re-employment in Function Group II at 1 June 2014, that his pensionable age had become 66 years old, and that the accrual rate of his pension rights would be 1,8 % from 1 June 2014;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 25 July 2016 of the Director of Directorate E of the Human Resources Directorate-General of the Commission, inasmuch as it rejects the appellant’s claim of 1 April 2016 against the decision or lack of decision resulting from the response of 4 January 2016 as inadmissible in the absence of a measure adversely affecting him and, in the alternative, as unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 25 July 2016 of the Director of Directorate E of the Human Resources Directorate-General of the Commission, inasmuch as it rejects the appellant’s claim of 1 April 2016 against the decision or lack of decision resulting from the response of 4 January 2016 as inadmissible in the absence of a measure adversely affecting him and, in the alternative, as unfounded;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant maintains that the contested judgment is vitiated by an error of law, since the General Court had limited the scope of the transitional provisions referred to in Article 21, Article 22, with the exception of paragraph 4, Article 23, Article 24a and Article 31(6) and (7) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which apply ‘by analogy to other servants employed on 31 December 2013’ in accordance with Article 1(1) of the annex to the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘the CEOS’).

According to the appellant, the General Court erred in holding that the conclusion of a new contract as a member of the contract staff, after the entry into force of the Reform of the Staff Regulations 2014, in order to access a higher function group was comparable, for the purposes of the application by analogy of the transitional provisions, in the case of members of the contract staff, to the ‘termination of service’ of an official, which brings to the application of those transitional provisions to an end.

In doing so, the General Court, inter alia, misinterpreted the objectives pursued by the legislature, the characteristics of the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the Union, and the terminology used in Article 1(1) of the annex to the CEOS by incorrectly equating the conclusion of a new contract immediately following a previous contract to a ‘termination of service’ or ‘end of employment’, despite the continuity of the appellant’s membership of the same pension scheme and of his service within the same institution as a member of the contract staff.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 18 June 2021 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) v AB, CD, EF

(Case C-374/21)

(2021/C 357/13)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)

Respondents: AB, CD, EF

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 preclude national legislation under which a limitation period of four or eight years may not be applied in judicial enforcement proceedings which have been commenced, since that issue may be assessed only in the context of an administrative-law action brought against the measure ordering the repayment of sums received in error on the ground that an irregularity has been established?
  If that question is answered in the negative, the following question is raised: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 preclude national legislation under which a limitation period of four or eight years may not be applied in judicial enforcement proceedings which have been commenced, since that issue may be assessed only in the context of an administrative-law action brought against the measure ordering the repayment of sums received in error on the ground that an irregularity has been established?

If that question is answered in the negative, the following question is raised:

| 2. | Must the three-year period laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 be regarded as being a limitation period applicable to the debt that is generated by the adoption of a measure requiring the repayment of sums received in error on account of the presence of irregularities in the financing? Does that period start to run from the date on which that measure is adopted?
  If that question is answered in the negative, the following question is also raised: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the three-year period laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 be regarded as being a limitation period applicable to the debt that is generated by the adoption of a measure requiring the repayment of sums received in error on account of the presence of irregularities in the financing? Does that period start to run from the date on which that measure is adopted?

If that question is answered in the negative, the following question is also raised:

| 3. | Does Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 preclude national legislation under which the limitation period applicable to the debt is interrupted in the case where, in the context of enforced recovery pursued against secondarily liable parties from the beneficiary company, those parties receive due notice, and remains suspended until such time as a final or unappealable decision is adopted on the objection raised by such secondarily liable parties? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 preclude national legislation under which the limitation period applicable to the debt is interrupted in the case where, in the context of enforced recovery pursued against secondarily liable parties from the beneficiary company, those parties receive due notice, and remains suspended until such time as a final or unappealable decision is adopted on the objection raised by such secondarily liable parties?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2021 — Société de Logement de Service Public (SLSP) ‘Sambre et Biesme’, SCRL v Société wallonne du logement

(Case C-383/21)

(2021/C 357/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société de Logement de Service Public (SLSP) ‘Sambre et Biesme’, SCRL

Defendant: Société wallonne du logement

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (1) as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2170 of 24 November 2015 (2) on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted as having direct effect? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (1) as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2170 of 24 November 2015 (2) on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted as having direct effect?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU be interpreted as meaning that the requirement for a contracting authority, in this case a public service housing company, to be represented on the decision-making bodies of the controlled legal person, in this case an inter-municipal cooperative society, is satisfied solely on the basis that a person who sits on the board of directors of that inter-municipal cooperative society in his or her capacity as a municipal councillor of another participating contracting authority, in this case a municipality, is, due to purely factual circumstances and without any legal guarantee of representation, also a director of the public service housing company, while the municipality is a (non-exclusive) shareholder in both the controlled entity (inter-municipal cooperative society) and the public service housing company? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU be interpreted as meaning that the requirement for a contracting authority, in this case a public service housing company, to be represented on the decision-making bodies of the controlled legal person, in this case an inter-municipal cooperative society, is satisfied solely on the basis that a person who sits on the board of directors of that inter-municipal cooperative society in his or her capacity as a municipal councillor of another participating contracting authority, in this case a municipality, is, due to purely factual circumstances and without any legal guarantee of representation, also a director of the public service housing company, while the municipality is a (non-exclusive) shareholder in both the controlled entity (inter-municipal cooperative society) and the public service housing company?

| 3. | If the answer to the first question is negative, must it be considered that a contracting authority, in this case a public service housing company, ‘participates’ in the decision-making bodies of the controlled legal person, in this case an inter-municipal cooperative society, solely on the basis that a person who sits on the board of directors of that inter-municipal cooperative society in his or her capacity as a municipal councillor of another participating contracting authority, in this case a municipality, is, due to purely factual circumstances and without any legal guarantee of representation, also a director of the public service housing company, while the municipality is a (non-exclusive) shareholder in both the controlled entity (inter-municipal cooperative society) and the public service housing company? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the first question is negative, must it be considered that a contracting authority, in this case a public service housing company, ‘participates’ in the decision-making bodies of the controlled legal person, in this case an inter-municipal cooperative society, solely on the basis that a person who sits on the board of directors of that inter-municipal cooperative society in his or her capacity as a municipal councillor of another participating contracting authority, in this case a municipality, is, due to purely factual circumstances and without any legal guarantee of representation, also a director of the public service housing company, while the municipality is a (non-exclusive) shareholder in both the controlled entity (inter-municipal cooperative society) and the public service housing company?

---

(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)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2170 of 24 November 2015 amending Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of the application thresholds for the procedures for the award of contracts (OJ 2015 L 307, p. 5).

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2021 — Municipality of Farciennes v Société wallonne du logement

(Case C-384/21)

(2021/C 357/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Municipality of Farciennes

Defendant: Société wallonne du logement

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (1) as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2170 of 24 November 2015 (2) on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC to be interpreted as having direct effect? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (1) as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2170 of 24 November 2015 (2) on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC to be interpreted as having direct effect?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU be interpreted as meaning that the requirement for a contracting authority, in this case a public service housing company, to be represented on the decision-making bodies of the controlled legal person, in this case an inter-municipal cooperative society, is satisfied solely on the basis that a person who sits on the board of directors of that inter-municipal cooperative society in his or her capacity as a municipal councillor of another participating contracting authority, in this case a municipality, is, due to purely factual circumstances and without any legal guarantee of representation, also a director of the public service housing company, while the municipality is a (non-exclusive) shareholder in both the controlled entity (inter-municipal cooperative society) and the public service housing company? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU be interpreted as meaning that the requirement for a contracting authority, in this case a public service housing company, to be represented on the decision-making bodies of the controlled legal person, in this case an inter-municipal cooperative society, is satisfied solely on the basis that a person who sits on the board of directors of that inter-municipal cooperative society in his or her capacity as a municipal councillor of another participating contracting authority, in this case a municipality, is, due to purely factual circumstances and without any legal guarantee of representation, also a director of the public service housing company, while the municipality is a (non-exclusive) shareholder in both the controlled entity (inter-municipal cooperative society) and the public service housing company?

| 3. | If the answer to the first question is negative, must it be considered that a contracting authority, in this case a public service housing company, ‘participates’ in the decision-making bodies of the controlled legal person, in this case an inter-municipal cooperative society, solely on the basis that a person who sits on the board of directors of that inter-municipal cooperative society in his or her capacity as a municipal councillor of another participating contracting authority, in this case a municipality, is, due to purely factual circumstances and without any legal guarantee of representation, also a director of the public service housing company, while the municipality is a (non-exclusive) shareholder in both the controlled entity (inter-municipal cooperative society) and the public service housing company? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the first question is negative, must it be considered that a contracting authority, in this case a public service housing company, ‘participates’ in the decision-making bodies of the controlled legal person, in this case an inter-municipal cooperative society, solely on the basis that a person who sits on the board of directors of that inter-municipal cooperative society in his or her capacity as a municipal councillor of another participating contracting authority, in this case a municipality, is, due to purely factual circumstances and without any legal guarantee of representation, also a director of the public service housing company, while the municipality is a (non-exclusive) shareholder in both the controlled entity (inter-municipal cooperative society) and the public service housing company?

| 4. | Must Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2170 of 24 November 2015 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, be interpreted as having direct effect? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2170 of 24 November 2015 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, be interpreted as having direct effect?

| 5. | If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU be interpreted as meaning that it allows tasks of project management assistance and legal and environmental services to be entrusted, without a prior call for competition, to a contracting authority, in this case an inter-municipal cooperative society, where those tasks form part of a cooperation between two other contracting authorities, in this case a municipality and a public service housing company, where it is not disputed that the municipality exercises ‘joint in-house’ control over the inter-municipal cooperative society and where the municipality and the public service housing company are members of the inter-municipal cooperative society in the ‘consultancy and management and central purchasing’ sector of its object, which is specifically concerned with the tasks they wish to entrust to it, which tasks correspond to activities carried out on the market by consultancy and management firms specialising in the design, execution and implementation of projects? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU be interpreted as meaning that it allows tasks of project management assistance and legal and environmental services to be entrusted, without a prior call for competition, to a contracting authority, in this case an inter-municipal cooperative society, where those tasks form part of a cooperation between two other contracting authorities, in this case a municipality and a public service housing company, where it is not disputed that the municipality exercises ‘joint in-house’ control over the inter-municipal cooperative society and where the municipality and the public service housing company are members of the inter-municipal cooperative society in the ‘consultancy and management and central purchasing’ sector of its object, which is specifically concerned with the tasks they wish to entrust to it, which tasks correspond to activities carried out on the market by consultancy and management firms specialising in the design, execution and implementation of projects?

---

(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)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2170 of 24 November 2015 amending Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of the application thresholds for the procedures for the award of contracts (OJ 2015 L 307, p. 5).

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 29 June 2021 — HUMDA Magyar Autó-Motorsport Fejlesztési Ügynökség Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-397/21)

(2021/C 357/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HUMDA Magyar Autó-Motorsport Fejlesztési Ügynökség Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the provisions of the VAT Directive, (1) in the light of the general principles thereof, in particular the principles of effectiveness and fiscal neutrality, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, and national practice based thereon, pursuant to which, where a taxable person liable for VAT erroneously issues an invoice including VAT in respect of an exempt supply and pays that tax to the Treasury in a provable manner, and the addressee of the invoice pays that VAT to the issuer of the invoice who charged the VAT, the national tax authority does not refund that VAT to either the issuer or the addressee of the invoice? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the provisions of the VAT Directive, (1) in the light of the general principles thereof, in particular the principles of effectiveness and fiscal neutrality, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, and national practice based thereon, pursuant to which, where a taxable person liable for VAT erroneously issues an invoice including VAT in respect of an exempt supply and pays that tax to the Treasury in a provable manner, and the addressee of the invoice pays that VAT to the issuer of the invoice who charged the VAT, the national tax authority does not refund that VAT to either the issuer or the addressee of the invoice?

| 2. | If the Court of Justice of the European Union answers the first question in the affirmative, must the provisions of the VAT Directive, in the light of the general principles thereof, in particular the principles of effectiveness, fiscal neutrality and non-discrimination, be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which, in the situation described in the previous question, the addressee of the invoice is absolutely prohibited from contacting the national tax authority directly in order to request a refund of the VAT or is permitted to do so only if it is impossible or excessively difficult to claim the amount of VAT in question by using another procedure under civil law, particularly where the issuer of the invoice has gone into liquidation in the meantime? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the Court of Justice of the European Union answers the first question in the affirmative, must the provisions of the VAT Directive, in the light of the general principles thereof, in particular the principles of effectiveness, fiscal neutrality and non-discrimination, be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which, in the situation described in the previous question, the addressee of the invoice is absolutely prohibited from contacting the national tax authority directly in order to request a refund of the VAT or is permitted to do so only if it is impossible or excessively difficult to claim the amount of VAT in question by using another procedure under civil law, particularly where the issuer of the invoice has gone into liquidation in the meantime?

| 3. | If the above question is answered in the affirmative, is the national tax authority under an obligation in those circumstances to pay interest on the VAT to be refunded? If that obligation does exist, what period of time does it cover? Is that obligation subject to the general rules on refunds of VAT? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the above question is answered in the affirmative, is the national tax authority under an obligation in those circumstances to pay interest on the VAT to be refunded? If that obligation does exist, what period of time does it cover? Is that obligation subject to the general rules on refunds of VAT?

---

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

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Asti (Italy) lodged on 30 June 2021 — WP v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale, Repubblica italiana

(Case C-404/21)

(2021/C 357/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Asti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WP

Defendants: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale, Repubblica italiana

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 45 and 48 TFEU, Article 4 TEU, Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and Article 8 of Annex IIIa to the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank be interpreted as precluding a set of national rules or a national administrative practice which does not allow a worker who is a national of a Member State who has paid contributions to the national social security institution and who currently works for an EU institution, such as the ECB, to transfer to the pension scheme of that institution the pension contributions credited to the social security scheme of his or her own State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 45 and 48 TFEU, Article 4 TEU, Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and Article 8 of Annex IIIa to the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank be interpreted as precluding a set of national rules or a national administrative practice which does not allow a worker who is a national of a Member State who has paid contributions to the national social security institution and who currently works for an EU institution, such as the ECB, to transfer to the pension scheme of that institution the pension contributions credited to the social security scheme of his or her own State?

| 2. | Based on the answer to the question set out above, must it be possible to exercise the right to transfer contributions even in the absence of national implementing legislation or a specific agreement between the Member State of which the worker is a national or the worker’s pension institution, on the one hand, and the EU institution, on the other? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Based on the answer to the question set out above, must it be possible to exercise the right to transfer contributions even in the absence of national implementing legislation or a specific agreement between the Member State of which the worker is a national or the worker’s pension institution, on the one hand, and the EU institution, on the other?

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 2 July 2021 — Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir), Consommation, logement et cadre de vie (CLCV) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance

(Case C-407/21)

(2021/C 357/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir), Consommation, logement et cadre de vie (CLCV)

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance

Questions referred

| 1 | Must Article 12 of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 (1) on package travel and linked travel arrangements be interpreted as obliging the organiser of package travel, in the event of termination of the contract, to refund in cash the full amount of any payments made for the package, or as authorising an equivalent refund, in particular in the form of a credit note for an amount equal to the amount of any payments made? |
| --- | --- |

1

Must Article 12 of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 (1) on package travel and linked travel arrangements be interpreted as obliging the organiser of package travel, in the event of termination of the contract, to refund in cash the full amount of any payments made for the package, or as authorising an equivalent refund, in particular in the form of a credit note for an amount equal to the amount of any payments made?

| 2 | If it is the case that those refunds refer to a cash refund, are the health crisis related to the COVID-19 epidemic and its effects on travel operators, which have suffered as a result of that crisis a fall in their turnover estimated at between 50 and 80 % and represent more than 7 % of France’s gross domestic product and, in the case of package tour operators, have 30 000 employees in France and a turnover of nearly EUR 11 billion, capable of justifying and, if so, under what conditions and subject to what limitations, a temporary derogation from the obligation for the organiser to refund to the traveller the full amount of any payments made for the package within a period of 14 days following the termination of the contract, laid down in Article 12(4) of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements? |
| --- | --- |

2

If it is the case that those refunds refer to a cash refund, are the health crisis related to the COVID-19 epidemic and its effects on travel operators, which have suffered as a result of that crisis a fall in their turnover estimated at between 50 and 80 % and represent more than 7 % of France’s gross domestic product and, in the case of package tour operators, have 30 000 employees in France and a turnover of nearly EUR 11 billion, capable of justifying and, if so, under what conditions and subject to what limitations, a temporary derogation from the obligation for the organiser to refund to the traveller the full amount of any payments made for the package within a period of 14 days following the termination of the contract, laid down in Article 12(4) of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements?

| 3 | If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, is it possible, in the circumstances mentioned above, to adjust the temporal effects of a decision annulling national legislation which is contrary to Article 12(4) of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements? |
| --- | --- |

3

If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, is it possible, in the circumstances mentioned above, to adjust the temporal effects of a decision annulling national legislation which is contrary to Article 12(4) of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1).

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/15

---

Order of the President of the Court of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — RC v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-103/20) (1)

(2021/C 357/19)

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/15

---

Order of the President of the Court of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles — Belgium) — SD v Habitations sociales du Roman Païs SCRL, TE, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Régie des Quartiers de Tubize ASBL

(Case C-104/20) (1)

(2021/C 357/20)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/16

---

Order of the President of the Court of 4 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Mokotowa w Warszawie — Poland) — European Chemicals Agency v Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej sp. z o.o.

(Case C-392/20) (1)

(2021/C 357/21)

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/16

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — JT, NQ v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-516/20) (1)

(2021/C 357/22)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/16

---

Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Córdoba — Spain) — ZU, TV v Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-618/20) (1)

(2021/C 357/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/16

---

Order of the President of the Court of 24 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — L GmbH v FK

(Case C-672/20) (1)

(2021/C 357/24)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/17

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Wacker Chemie AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland represented by the Umweltbundesamt

(Case C-76/21) (1)

(2021/C 357/25)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/17

---

Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — EF v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-172/21) (1)

(2021/C 357/26)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/17

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — FC v FTI Touristik GmbH

(Case C-287/21) (1)

(2021/C 357/27)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---

General Court

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — AI v ECDC

(Case T-65/19) (1)

(Civil service - ECDC staff - Psychological harassment - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Scope of the duty to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Resignation of the perpetrator of the behaviour complained of - Failure to open a disciplinary procedure - Article 86 of the Staff Regulations - Reply to a request for assistance - Action for annulment - Act adversely affecting an official - Infringement of the right to be heard - No statement of reasons - Denial of access to the investigation report and other documents - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Liability)

(2021/C 357/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AI (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Iber, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decisions of ECDC of 18 May 2018, 20 June 2018 and 26 October 2018 taken in response to the applicant’s request for assistance on the ground of psychological harassment and his request for access to certain documents and, secondly, compensation for the damage which he suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) of 18 May 2018 adopted in response to the request for assistance submitted by AI on 20 June 2017; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) of 18 May 2018 adopted in response to the request for assistance submitted by AI on 20 June 2017;

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the ECDC of 20 June 2018 in so far as it refused AI access to the non-confidential parts of the investigation report relating to his request for assistance of 20 June 2017 and of A’s email of 17 January 2018 that concern him; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the ECDC of 20 June 2018 in so far as it refused AI access to the non-confidential parts of the investigation report relating to his request for assistance of 20 June 2017 and of A’s email of 17 January 2018 that concern him;

| 3. | Annuls the ECDC decision of 26 October 2018 rejecting AI’s complaint of 2 July 2018; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls the ECDC decision of 26 October 2018 rejecting AI’s complaint of 2 July 2018;

| 4. | Dismisses the claim for damages; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the claim for damages;

| 5. | Orders ECDC to bear, in addition to its own costs, three-quarters of the costs incurred by AI; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders ECDC to bear, in addition to its own costs, three-quarters of the costs incurred by AI;

| 6. | Orders AI to bear one quarter of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders AI to bear one quarter of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — AQ v eu-LISA

(Case T-164/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Sick leave - Termination of the contract without notice - Article 16 of the CEOS - Article 48(b) of the CEOS - Duty of care - Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Liability - Material harm - Non-material harm - Causal link)

(2021/C 357/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AQ (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Meyer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of eu-LISA of 8 May 2018 to terminate the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and, secondly, compensation for the loss which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 8 May 2018 by which the Executive Director of the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) terminated the employment of AQ as a temporary agent; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 8 May 2018 by which the Executive Director of the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) terminated the employment of AQ as a temporary agent;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders AQ and eu-LISA to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders AQ and eu-LISA to bear their own costs;

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — BG v Parliament

(Case T-253/19) (1)

(Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Termination of the contract - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Retaliation - Manifest errors of assessment - Liability)

(2021/C 357/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BG (represented by: L. Levi, A. Champetier and A. Tymen, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 18 May 2018 to terminate the applicant’s contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant and, secondly, compensation for the non-material damage which she claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders BG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament

(Case T-670/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Procedure of appointment to a director’s post - Notice of vacancy - Rejection of the applicant’s application and appointment of another applicant - Obligation to state reasons - Plea of illegality in respect of the measures setting the internal rules of procedure - Irregularity of the recruitment procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Inaccuracy of the information sent to the Appointing Authority - Transparency - Equal treatment - Liability - Material and non-material damage)

(2021/C 357/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 for, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 10 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application and appointing another applicant to the post of director for media in the Directorate-General for Communication, and, secondly, for compensation for the damage the applicant allegedly suffered owing to that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 10 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application and appointing another applicant to the post of director for media in the Directorate-General for Communication; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 10 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application and appointing another applicant to the post of director for media in the Directorate-General for Communication;

| 2. | Orders Parliament to pay the sum of EUR 40 000 to the applicant in compensation for material damage; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Parliament to pay the sum of EUR 40 000 to the applicant in compensation for material damage;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant v Commission

(Case T-716/19) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine - Interim review - Calculation of the normal value - Selling, general and administrative costs - Sales between related companies - Ordinary course of trade - Single economic entity - Article 2(3), (4) and (6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Export price - Adjustment - Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis - Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Manifest error of assessment - Methodology different from that used in a previous investigation - Article 11(9) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Legitimate expectations - Rights of the defence)

(2021/C 357/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Interpipe Niko Tube LLC (Nikopol, Ukraine), Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant OJSC (Dnipro, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1295 of 1 August 2019 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1469 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (OJ 2019 L 204, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Interpipe Niko Tube LLC and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant OJSC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Interpipe Niko Tube LLC and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant OJSC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management v EUIPO — Yiwu Dearbody Cosmetics (BODYSECRETS)

(Case T-810/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark BODYSECRETS - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Customary nature - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d), and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d), and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 357/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (Reynoldsburg, Ohio, United States) (represented by: J. Dickerson, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Yiwu Dearbody Cosmetics Co. Ltd (Yiwu City, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 2422/2018-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management and Yiwu Dearbody Cosmetics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Kneissl Holding v EUIPO — LS 9 (KNEISSL)

(Case T-65/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark KNEISSL - Partial revocation - No genuine use of the mark - Extent of use - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 10(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Abuse of rights)

(2021/C 357/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kneissl Holding GmbH (Ebbs, Austria) (represented by: O. Nilgen and A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: LS 9 GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 (Case R 2265/2018-2), relating to revocation proceedings between LS 9 and Kneissl Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kneissl Holding GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kneissl Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — IN v EISMEA

(Case T-119/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - Appraisal - Right to be heard - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Manifest error of assessment - Reasonable time - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2021/C 357/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Innovation Council and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Executive Agency (represented by: A. Galea, acting as Agent, and by A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the decision of the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) of 15 April 2019 not to renew the applicant’s contract and of the latter’s appraisal for the year 2018 as finalised on 3 June 2019 and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the European Innovation Council and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Executive Agency (EISMEA) to pay to IN the amount of EUR 3 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Innovation Council and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Executive Agency (EISMEA) to pay to IN the amount of EUR 3 000;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rochefort v Parliament

(Case T-170/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Burden of proof - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Error of law - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2021/C 357/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Robert Rochefort (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Stasi, J.-L. Teheux and J.-M. Rikkers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, T. Lazian and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 61 423,40 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and of the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from Mr Robert Rochefort of a sum of EUR 61 423,40 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020 in so far as they concern sums paid between April and June 2010, February, June and July 2011 and, lastly, between 21 May and 27 July 2012; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from Mr Robert Rochefort of a sum of EUR 61 423,40 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020 in so far as they concern sums paid between April and June 2010, February, June and July 2011 and, lastly, between 21 May and 27 July 2012;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Mr Rochefort and the Parliament each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Rochefort and the Parliament each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rochefort v Parliament

(Case T-171/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Burden of proof - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Error of law - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2021/C 357/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Robert Rochefort (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Stasi, J.-L. Teheux and J.-M. Rikkers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, T. Lazian and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 27 241 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and of the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Robert Rochefort to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Robert Rochefort to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rochefort v Parliament

(Case T-172/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Burden of proof - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Error of law - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2021/C 357/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Robert Rochefort (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Stasi, J.-L. Teheux and J.-M. Rikkers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, T. Lazian and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 60 499,38 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and of the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from Mr Robert Rochefort of a sum of EUR 60 499,38 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020 in so far as they concern sums paid for April 2010, for the days not corresponding to the missions accepted by the Secretary General of the Parliament, and the period from 29 to 31 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from Mr Robert Rochefort of a sum of EUR 60 499,38 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020 in so far as they concern sums paid for April 2010, for the days not corresponding to the missions accepted by the Secretary General of the Parliament, and the period from 29 to 31 March 2011;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Mr Rochefort and the Parliament each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Rochefort and the Parliament each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/25

---

Order of the General Court of 9 July 2021 — Kozhuvchanka uvoz-izvoz Kavadarci v EUIPO (NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER)

(Case T-357/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Geographical origin - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2021/C 357/39)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Drushtvo za proizvodvsto, trgovija i uslugi Kozhuvchanka d.o.o. uvoz-izvoz Kavadarci (Kavadarci, North Macedonia) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and P. Angelova Georgieva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 (Case R 1729/2019-1), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Drushtvo za proizvodvsto, trgovija i uslugi Kozhuvchanka d.o.o. uvoz-izvoz Kavadarci shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Drushtvo za proizvodvsto, trgovija i uslugi Kozhuvchanka d.o.o. uvoz-izvoz Kavadarci shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/26

---

Action brought on 13 June 2021 — Oi Dromoi tis Elias v Commission

(Case T-352/21)

(2021/C 357/40)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Politistikos Organismos ‘Oi Dromoi tis Elias’ (Kalamata, Greece) (represented by: S. Vardalas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the undated rejection decision, received by the applicant on 23 April 2021, by which the defendant rejected the applicant’s request to participate (‘the proposal’), as the partner responsible for carrying out EUROPE DIRECT activities in Greece, in accordance with the defendant’s call for proposals ED-GREECE-2020/SELECTION OF PARTNERS TO CARRY OUT EUROPE DIRECT ACTIVITIES (2021-2025) IN GREECE; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the undated rejection decision, received by the applicant on 23 April 2021, by which the defendant rejected the applicant’s request to participate (‘the proposal’), as the partner responsible for carrying out EUROPE DIRECT activities in Greece, in accordance with the defendant’s call for proposals ED-GREECE-2020/SELECTION OF PARTNERS TO CARRY OUT EUROPE DIRECT ACTIVITIES (2021-2025) IN GREECE; and

| — | accept the applicant’s participation proposal, as the partner responsible for carrying out EUROPE DIRECT activities in Greece, in accordance with the defendant’s call for proposals. |
| --- | --- |

—

accept the applicant’s participation proposal, as the partner responsible for carrying out EUROPE DIRECT activities in Greece, in accordance with the defendant’s call for proposals.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 1 of the call for proposals, by stating that the applicant does not adequately describe the physical environment of the Kalamata EDIC zone of activity and that it failed to take digital transformation into consideration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 1 of the call for proposals, by stating that the applicant does not adequately describe the physical environment of the Kalamata EDIC zone of activity and that it failed to take digital transformation into consideration.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 2 of the call for proposals, by stating that the Kalamata EDIC has limited connections with organisations such as small and medium-sized enterprises, NGOs, etc. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 2 of the call for proposals, by stating that the Kalamata EDIC has limited connections with organisations such as small and medium-sized enterprises, NGOs, etc.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 3 of the call for proposals. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 3 of the call for proposals.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 4 of the call for proposals. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 4 of the call for proposals.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/26

---

Action brought on 22 June 2021 — Syndesmos Tyrokomon Kyprou and Others v Commission

(Case T-361/21)

(2021/C 357/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Syndesmos Tyrokomon Kyprou (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 11 other applicants (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s Implementing Regulation No 2021/591 of 12 April 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ (PDO)); (1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s Implementing Regulation No 2021/591 of 12 April 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ (PDO)); (1) and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has conducted a manifest error of assessment on the conformity of the application for registration No CY/PDO/0005/01243 with the Regulation No 1151/2012. (2) It is argued that the defendant infringed Articles 10, 49 and 50 of Regulation No 1151/2012 and failed to properly scrutinize the application for registration of ‘Halloumi’ as a PDO. (3) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has conducted a manifest error of assessment on the conformity of the application for registration No CY/PDO/0005/01243 with the Regulation No 1151/2012. (2) It is argued that the defendant infringed Articles 10, 49 and 50 of Regulation No 1151/2012 and failed to properly scrutinize the application for registration of ‘Halloumi’ as a PDO. (3)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Articles 10, 49 and 50 of Regulation No 1151/2012 by non-verifying the compliance with the procedure laid down by Regulation No 1151/2012. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Articles 10, 49 and 50 of Regulation No 1151/2012 by non-verifying the compliance with the procedure laid down by Regulation No 1151/2012.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of good administration because of the extreme duration of the procedure of registration. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of good administration because of the extreme duration of the procedure of registration.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation is insufficiently motivated. It is argued that the defendant infringed its obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 of the TFEU and the right of the applicants to an effective remedy. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation is insufficiently motivated. It is argued that the defendant infringed its obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 of the TFEU and the right of the applicants to an effective remedy.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of good administration because the Cypriot Courts have annulled the internal national acts on which the contested Regulation is based. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of good administration because the Cypriot Courts have annulled the internal national acts on which the contested Regulation is based.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 125, p 42-51.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1-29.

(3)  Protected Designation of Origin.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/27

---

Action brought on 11 July 2021 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)

(Case T-416/21)

(2021/C 357/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Save the Duck SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ITINERANT — Application for registration No 17 946 859

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 May 2021 in Case R 997/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to grant European Union trade mark No 17 946 853 for Classes 18 and 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to grant European Union trade mark No 17 946 853 for Classes 18 and 25;

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

—

order [EUIPO] to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Incorrect exclusion of the evidence submitted before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect exclusion of the evidence submitted before the Board of Appeal;

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/28

---

Action brought on 11 July 2021 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)

(Case T-417/21)

(2021/C 357/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Save the Duck SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ITINERANT — Application for registration No 17 946 853

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2021 in Case R 1017/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to grant European Union trade mark No 17 946 853 for Classes 18 and 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to grant European Union trade mark No 17 946 853 for Classes 18 and 25;

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

—

order [EUIPO] to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Incorrect exclusion of the evidence submitted before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect exclusion of the evidence submitted before the Board of Appeal;

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/29

---

Action brought on 13 July 2021 — Gioioso v EUIPO — Maxi Di (MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT)

(Case T-423/21)

(2021/C 357/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sebastiano Gioioso (Fasano, Italy) (represented by: F. Amati, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maxi Di Srl (Belfiore, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT — Application for registration No 18 024 185

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2021 in Case R 1650/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/29

---

Action brought on 14 July 2021 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Cantina Sociale Tollo (ALDIANO)

(Case T-429/21)

(2021/C 357/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. oHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Fürsen, M. Minkner and A. Starcke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cantina Sociale Tollo SCA (Tollo, Italy)

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 ALDIANO — European Union trade mark No 10 942 274

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2021 in Case R 1074/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/30

---

Action brought on 15 July 2021 — Apex Brands v EUIPO — SARTORIUS Werkzeuge (SATA)

(Case T-430/21)

(2021/C 357/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Apex Brands, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: S. Fröhlich, H. Lerchl and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SARTORIUS Werkzeuge GmbH & Co. KG (Ratingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SATA — Application for registration No 18 051 525

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2021 in Case R 2322/2020-4

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 of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of the general principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the general principle of equal treatment.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/31

---

Action brought on 16 July 2021 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU)

(Case T-432/21)

(2021/C 357/47)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Sushi&Food Factor sp. z o.o. (Robakowo, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark READY 4YOU — Application No 18 209 237

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2021 in Case R 2321/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and give final judgment by approving for registration EU trade mark application No 18 209 237; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and give final judgment by approving for registration EU trade mark application No 18 209 237;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the Operations Department of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the Operations Department of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) thereof;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (c) thereof, including the right to be heard, the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions, the right to good administration, the principle of legal certainty, and the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (c) thereof, including the right to be heard, the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions, the right to good administration, the principle of legal certainty, and the principle of equal treatment.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/31

---

Action brought on 16 July 2021 — VITRONIC v EUIPO (Enforcement Trailer)

(Case T-433/21)

(2021/C 357/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: VITRONIC Dr.-Ing. Stein Bildverarbeitungssysteme GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: D. Tsoumanis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Enforcement Trailer — Application for registration No 18 281 599

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2021 in Case R 236/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare that the grounds for refusal to register set out in Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 preclude registration only in those Member States in which English is the official language, namely Ireland and Malta; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the grounds for refusal to register set out in Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 preclude registration only in those Member States in which English is the official language, namely Ireland and Malta;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the General Court and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the General Court and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/32

---

Action brought on 15 July 2021 — TL v Commission

(Case T-438/21)

(2021/C 357/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TL (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 29 October 2020 not to extend the applicant’s employment contract (the ‘non-renewal decision’); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 29 October 2020 not to extend the applicant’s employment contract (the ‘non-renewal decision’);

| — | together with, and so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 5 May 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the decision of 29 October 2020 (the ‘contested decision’); |
| --- | --- |

—

together with, and so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 5 May 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the decision of 29 October 2020 (the ‘contested decision’);

| — | annul the defendant’s vacancy notice of 2 October 2020, in so far as it offers a post with tasks identical to the ones the applicant was already performing; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s vacancy notice of 2 October 2020, in so far as it offers a post with tasks identical to the ones the applicant was already performing;

| — | order the payment of compensation amounting to 90 % of the applicant’s gross salaries, including pension contributions, for the loss of serious chance of having the existing employment contract renewed and order the payment of a compensation for the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of compensation amounting to 90 % of the applicant’s gross salaries, including pension contributions, for the loss of serious chance of having the existing employment contract renewed and order the payment of a compensation for the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment since the reasons given in the ‘contested decision’ and in the ‘non renewal decision’ of the applicant’s employment contract are not well founded. Furthermore, it is argued that the files on which the applicant has mainly worked have not become less prominent and that the unit staff needs have not diminished, contrary to what the defendant alleges. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment since the reasons given in the ‘contested decision’ and in the ‘non renewal decision’ of the applicant’s employment contract are not well founded. Furthermore, it is argued that the files on which the applicant has mainly worked have not become less prominent and that the unit staff needs have not diminished, contrary to what the defendant alleges.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached its duty of care because there has been no balance between the interest of the service and the interest of the staff member. It is also argued that the defendant has not taken other elements contained in the file of the applicant (i.e., harassment) into consideration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached its duty of care because there has been no balance between the interest of the service and the interest of the staff member. It is also argued that the defendant has not taken other elements contained in the file of the applicant (i.e., harassment) into consideration.

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/33

---

Action brought on 20 July 2021 — Anglofranchise v EUIPO — Bugrey (BOY LONDON)

(Case T-439/21)

(2021/C 357/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Anglofranchise Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi, N. Parrotta, R. Perotti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yuliya Bugrey (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark BOY LONDON –European Union trade mark No 11 708 773

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2021 in Case R 459/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal;

| — | Order Yuliya Bugrey to pay the applicant’s costs of the present proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Yuliya Bugrey to pay the applicant’s costs of the present proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/34

---

Action brought on 23 July 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-444/21)

(2021/C 357/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 12 March 2021 on State Aid SA.60113 — Finnair — COVID-19 — hybrid loan 107.2.b; (1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 12 March 2021 on State Aid SA.60113 — Finnair — COVID-19 — hybrid loan 107.2.b; (1) and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four plea(s) in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed manifest errors of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed manifest errors of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, C 240, p. 14.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).

---

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/34

---

Order of the General Court of 2 July 2021 — MD v Commission

(Case T-552/20) (1)

(2021/C 357/52)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.

---