# Official Journal C 175/25 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 175 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6325 May 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 175

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6325 May 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2020/C 175/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2020/C 175/02 | Taking of the oath by a new Member | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2020/C 175/01

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

Court of Justice

2020/C 175/02

Taking of the oath by a new Member

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2020/C 175/03 | Case C-87/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2020 — Hauptzollamt B v XY | 3 |
| 2020/C 175/04 | Case C-95/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 February 2020 — VARCHEV FINANS EOOD v Komisia za finansov nadzor | 4 |
| 2020/C 175/05 | Case C-105/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 27 February 2020 — UF v Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres) | 5 |
| 2020/C 175/06 | Case C-122/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2020 by Bruno Gollnisch against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 10 December 2019 in Case T-319/19 Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament | 6 |
| 2020/C 175/07 | Case C-125/20: Action brought on 4 March 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain | 6 |
| | General Court |
| 2020/C 175/08 | Case T-732/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by Spain to certain professional football clubs — Guarantee — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Advantage — Firm in difficulty — Private investor test — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty — Amount of the aid — Recipient of the aid — Principle of non-discrimination — Duty to state reasons) | 8 |
| 2020/C 175/09 | Case T-901/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Elche Club de Fútbol v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs — Guarantee — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Indirect beneficiary — Whether imputable to the State — Advantage — Private investor test) | 9 |
| 2020/C 175/10 | Case T-383/17: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — Hansol Paper v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in South Korea — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Dumping margin calculation — Calculation of the injury margin — Determination of injury) | 9 |
| 2020/C 175/11 | Case T-571/17: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — UG v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Contract of indefinite duration — Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS — Termination with notice — Grounds for termination — Conduct in the service and attitude at work incompatible with the interests of the service — Manifest error of assessment — Review of the accuracy of the facts — Lack of evidence — Liability — Material harm — Payment of salaries owed) | 10 |
| 2020/C 175/12 | Case T-734/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — ViaSat v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Mobile satellite system operator — Documents provided to the Commission by a candidate selected in a call for tenders — Implied and express refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Overriding public interest — Refusal of partial access) | 11 |
| 2020/C 175/13 | Case T-835/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Eurofer v Commission (Dumping — Imports of hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine — Termination of the proceedings against imports originating in Serbia — Determination of injury — Cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from more than one country — Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Termination without measures — Article 9(2) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Final disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend the imposition of definitive measures or the termination of an investigation or proceedings without the imposition of measures — Article 20(2) of Regulation 2016/1036) | 12 |
| 2020/C 175/14 | Case T-81/18: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 –Barata v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Certification procedure — 2016 promotion exercise — Exclusion of the applicant from the final list of officials authorised to take part in the training programme — Article 45a of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence) | 13 |
| 2020/C 175/15 | Case T-215/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — QB v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Appraisal exercise — Appraisal report for 2016 — Author of the appraisal report — Manifest error of assessment — Sick leave — Redeployment — Remuneration — Decision not to award a salary increase — Competence of the author of an act adversely affecting a party — Liability) | 14 |
| 2020/C 175/16 | Case T-474/18: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 –Veit v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Remuneration — Competitions — Equality of treatment between internal and external candidates — Classification in step) | 14 |
| 2020/C 175/17 | Case T-484/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — XB v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Remuneration — Household allowance — Dependent child allowance — Education and pre-school allowances — Eligibility — Rejection of applications for those allowances — Conditions of Short-Term Employment — Conditions and rules applicable to short-term employment contracts) | 15 |
| 2020/C 175/18 | Case T-531/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — LL-Carpenter v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Motor vehicle market in the Czech Republic — Decision rejecting a complaint — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Obligation to state reasons) | 16 |
| 2020/C 175/19 | Case T-547/18: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 –Teeäär v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Programme of support for transition to a career outside the ECB — Rejection of an application to take part in that programme — Eligibility conditions — Different lengths of service required depending on whether a staff member is in a single salary band or a salary broadband — Allocation to a salary band on the basis of the type of employment — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Manifest error of assessment) | 16 |
| 2020/C 175/20 | Case T-646/18: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Bonnafous v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Audit Report on HR Management in the EACEA — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits) | 17 |
| 2020/C 175/21 | Case T-77/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Alcar Aktiebolag v EUIPO — Alcar Holding (alcar.se) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark alcar.se — Earlier EU word mark ALCAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 17 |
| 2020/C 175/22 | Case T-85/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Gwo Chyang Biotech v EUIPO — Norma (KinGirls) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark KinGirls — Earlier German word mark King — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 18 |
| 2020/C 175/23 | Case T-296/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA v EUIPO — Heretat Mont-Rubi (SUM011) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SUM011 — Prior figurative EU word mark Sumol and prior national word mark SUMOL — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 19 |
| 2020/C 175/24 | Case T-312/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — Golden Frog (CHAMELEON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark CHAMELEON — Earlier international and national word marks CHAMELEON — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 19 |
| 2020/C 175/25 | Case T-321/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Maternus v EUIPO– adp Gauselmann (Jokers WILD Casino) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark Jokers WILD Casino — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No genuine use of the trade mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 20 |
| 2020/C 175/26 | Case T-343/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Conlance v EUIPO — LG Electronics (SONANCE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SONANCE — Earlier national word mark conlance — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 21 |
| 2020/C 175/27 | Case T-352/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss (Packaging for foodstuffs) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing packaging for foodstuffs — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 21 |
| 2020/C 175/28 | Case T-353/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss (Packaging for foodstuffs) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing packaging for foodstuffs — Earlier design — Proof of disclosure — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 22 |
| 2020/C 175/29 | Case T-570/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a twisted cheese) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a twisted cheese — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 23 |
| 2020/C 175/30 | Case T-571/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a twisted cheese) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a twisted cheese — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 23 |
| 2020/C 175/31 | Case T-572/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a twisted cheese) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a twisted cheese — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 24 |
| 2020/C 175/32 | Case T-129/19: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2020 — Necci v Commission (Action for annulment — Civil service — Contract staff — Social security — JSIS — Rejection of the application for membership — Out of time — Substantial new fact — Inadmissibility) | 24 |
| 2020/C 175/33 | Case T-183/19: Order of the General Court of 13 March 2020 — Jalkh v Parliament (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure — Major interpellations — Failure to comply with formal requirements — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Locus standi — Lack of direct concern — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act — Implementing measures — Inadmissibility) | 25 |
| 2020/C 175/34 | Case T-236/19: Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Le Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize v Commission and EACEA (Action for annulment — Europe for Citizens Programme (2014-2020) — Call for applications Town Twinning 2017, second deadline (EACEA 36/2014) — Decision of the EACEA rejecting the applicant’s application for failure to meet the eligibility criteria — Commission’s decision rejecting the administrative action relating to the EACEA’s decision — Application submitted by a de facto association — Capacity to be party to legal proceedings — No evidence of legal existence — Inadmissibility) | 26 |
| 2020/C 175/35 | Case T-507/19: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2020 — Lucaccioni v Commission (Action for annulment — Civil service — Preparatory act — Action for compensation — Action closely related to the action for annulment — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility) | 26 |
| 2020/C 175/36 | Case T-603/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 March 2020 — Helsingin Bussiliikenne v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 27 |
| 2020/C 175/37 | Case T-612/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2020 — Aceto Agricultural Chemicals v Commission (Application for interim relief — Plant protection products — Non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpropham — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 28 |
| 2020/C 175/38 | Case T-20/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 March 2020 — Intertranslations (Intertransleïsions) Metafraseis v Parliament (Interim measures — Public service contracts — Application for interim measures — No urgency) | 28 |
| 2020/C 175/39 | Case T-130/20: Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (SIENNA SELECTION) | 29 |
| 2020/C 175/40 | Case T-148/20: Action brought on 9 March 2020 — FC v EASO | 29 |
| 2020/C 175/41 | Case T-150/20: Action brought on 24 March 2020 — Tartu Agro v Commission | 30 |
| 2020/C 175/42 | Case T-151/20: Action brought on 16 March 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission | 32 |
| 2020/C 175/43 | Case T-161/20: Action brought on 27 March 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 v Commission | 33 |
| 2020/C 175/44 | Case T-167/20: Action brought on 20 March 2020 — Tornado Boats International v EUIPO — Haygreen (TORNADO) | 33 |
| 2020/C 175/45 | Case T-174/20: Action brought on 4 April 2020 — Comune di Stintino v Commission | 34 |
| 2020/C 175/46 | Case T-175/20: Action brought on 31 March 2020 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sanolie (SANOLIE) | 35 |
| 2020/C 175/47 | Case T-548/19: Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Riginos Emporiki kai Mesitiki v EUIPO — Honda Motor (ONDA 1962) | 36 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2020/C 175/03

Case C-87/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2020 — Hauptzollamt B v XY

3

2020/C 175/04

Case C-95/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 February 2020 — VARCHEV FINANS EOOD v Komisia za finansov nadzor

4

2020/C 175/05

Case C-105/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 27 February 2020 — UF v Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)

5

2020/C 175/06

Case C-122/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2020 by Bruno Gollnisch against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 10 December 2019 in Case T-319/19 Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament

6

2020/C 175/07

Case C-125/20: Action brought on 4 March 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

6

General Court

2020/C 175/08

Case T-732/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by Spain to certain professional football clubs — Guarantee — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Advantage — Firm in difficulty — Private investor test — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty — Amount of the aid — Recipient of the aid — Principle of non-discrimination — Duty to state reasons)

8

2020/C 175/09

Case T-901/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Elche Club de Fútbol v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs — Guarantee — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Indirect beneficiary — Whether imputable to the State — Advantage — Private investor test)

9

2020/C 175/10

Case T-383/17: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — Hansol Paper v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in South Korea — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Dumping margin calculation — Calculation of the injury margin — Determination of injury)

9

2020/C 175/11

Case T-571/17: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — UG v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Contract of indefinite duration — Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS — Termination with notice — Grounds for termination — Conduct in the service and attitude at work incompatible with the interests of the service — Manifest error of assessment — Review of the accuracy of the facts — Lack of evidence — Liability — Material harm — Payment of salaries owed)

10

2020/C 175/12

Case T-734/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — ViaSat v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Mobile satellite system operator — Documents provided to the Commission by a candidate selected in a call for tenders — Implied and express refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Overriding public interest — Refusal of partial access)

11

2020/C 175/13

Case T-835/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Eurofer v Commission (Dumping — Imports of hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine — Termination of the proceedings against imports originating in Serbia — Determination of injury — Cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from more than one country — Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Termination without measures — Article 9(2) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Final disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend the imposition of definitive measures or the termination of an investigation or proceedings without the imposition of measures — Article 20(2) of Regulation 2016/1036)

12

2020/C 175/14

Case T-81/18: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 –Barata v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Certification procedure — 2016 promotion exercise — Exclusion of the applicant from the final list of officials authorised to take part in the training programme — Article 45a of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence)

13

2020/C 175/15

Case T-215/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — QB v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Appraisal exercise — Appraisal report for 2016 — Author of the appraisal report — Manifest error of assessment — Sick leave — Redeployment — Remuneration — Decision not to award a salary increase — Competence of the author of an act adversely affecting a party — Liability)

14

2020/C 175/16

Case T-474/18: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 –Veit v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Remuneration — Competitions — Equality of treatment between internal and external candidates — Classification in step)

14

2020/C 175/17

Case T-484/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — XB v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Remuneration — Household allowance — Dependent child allowance — Education and pre-school allowances — Eligibility — Rejection of applications for those allowances — Conditions of Short-Term Employment — Conditions and rules applicable to short-term employment contracts)

15

2020/C 175/18

Case T-531/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — LL-Carpenter v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Motor vehicle market in the Czech Republic — Decision rejecting a complaint — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Obligation to state reasons)

16

2020/C 175/19

Case T-547/18: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 –Teeäär v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Programme of support for transition to a career outside the ECB — Rejection of an application to take part in that programme — Eligibility conditions — Different lengths of service required depending on whether a staff member is in a single salary band or a salary broadband — Allocation to a salary band on the basis of the type of employment — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Manifest error of assessment)

16

2020/C 175/20

Case T-646/18: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Bonnafous v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Audit Report on HR Management in the EACEA — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits)

17

2020/C 175/21

Case T-77/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Alcar Aktiebolag v EUIPO — Alcar Holding (alcar.se) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark alcar.se — Earlier EU word mark ALCAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

17

2020/C 175/22

Case T-85/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Gwo Chyang Biotech v EUIPO — Norma (KinGirls) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark KinGirls — Earlier German word mark King — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

18

2020/C 175/23

Case T-296/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA v EUIPO — Heretat Mont-Rubi (SUM011) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SUM011 — Prior figurative EU word mark Sumol and prior national word mark SUMOL — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

19

2020/C 175/24

Case T-312/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — Golden Frog (CHAMELEON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark CHAMELEON — Earlier international and national word marks CHAMELEON — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

19

2020/C 175/25

Case T-321/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Maternus v EUIPO– adp Gauselmann (Jokers WILD Casino) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark Jokers WILD Casino — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No genuine use of the trade mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001)

20

2020/C 175/26

Case T-343/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Conlance v EUIPO — LG Electronics (SONANCE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SONANCE — Earlier national word mark conlance — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

21

2020/C 175/27

Case T-352/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss (Packaging for foodstuffs) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing packaging for foodstuffs — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

21

2020/C 175/28

Case T-353/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss (Packaging for foodstuffs) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing packaging for foodstuffs — Earlier design — Proof of disclosure — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

22

2020/C 175/29

Case T-570/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a twisted cheese) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a twisted cheese — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

23

2020/C 175/30

Case T-571/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a twisted cheese) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a twisted cheese — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

23

2020/C 175/31

Case T-572/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a twisted cheese) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a twisted cheese — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

24

2020/C 175/32

Case T-129/19: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2020 — Necci v Commission (Action for annulment — Civil service — Contract staff — Social security — JSIS — Rejection of the application for membership — Out of time — Substantial new fact — Inadmissibility)

24

2020/C 175/33

Case T-183/19: Order of the General Court of 13 March 2020 — Jalkh v Parliament (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure — Major interpellations — Failure to comply with formal requirements — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Locus standi — Lack of direct concern — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act — Implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

25

2020/C 175/34

Case T-236/19: Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Le Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize v Commission and EACEA (Action for annulment — Europe for Citizens Programme (2014-2020) — Call for applications Town Twinning 2017, second deadline (EACEA 36/2014) — Decision of the EACEA rejecting the applicant’s application for failure to meet the eligibility criteria — Commission’s decision rejecting the administrative action relating to the EACEA’s decision — Application submitted by a de facto association — Capacity to be party to legal proceedings — No evidence of legal existence — Inadmissibility)

26

2020/C 175/35

Case T-507/19: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2020 — Lucaccioni v Commission (Action for annulment — Civil service — Preparatory act — Action for compensation — Action closely related to the action for annulment — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility)

26

2020/C 175/36

Case T-603/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 March 2020 — Helsingin Bussiliikenne v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

27

2020/C 175/37

Case T-612/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2020 — Aceto Agricultural Chemicals v Commission (Application for interim relief — Plant protection products — Non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpropham — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

28

2020/C 175/38

Case T-20/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 March 2020 — Intertranslations (Intertransleïsions) Metafraseis v Parliament (Interim measures — Public service contracts — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

28

2020/C 175/39

Case T-130/20: Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (SIENNA SELECTION)

29

2020/C 175/40

Case T-148/20: Action brought on 9 March 2020 — FC v EASO

29

2020/C 175/41

Case T-150/20: Action brought on 24 March 2020 — Tartu Agro v Commission

30

2020/C 175/42

Case T-151/20: Action brought on 16 March 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission

32

2020/C 175/43

Case T-161/20: Action brought on 27 March 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 v Commission

33

2020/C 175/44

Case T-167/20: Action brought on 20 March 2020 — Tornado Boats International v EUIPO — Haygreen (TORNADO)

33

2020/C 175/45

Case T-174/20: Action brought on 4 April 2020 — Comune di Stintino v Commission

34

2020/C 175/46

Case T-175/20: Action brought on 31 March 2020 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sanolie (SANOLIE)

35

2020/C 175/47

Case T-548/19: Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Riginos Emporiki kai Mesitiki v EUIPO — Honda Motor (ONDA 1962)

36

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/1

---

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

(2020/C 175/01)

Last publication

OJ C 161, 11.5.2020

OJ C 162, 11.5.2020

Past publications

OJ C 137, 27.4.2020

OJ C 129, 20.4.2020

OJ C 114, 6.4.2020

OJ C 103, 30.3.2020

OJ C 95, 23.3.2020

OJ C 87, 16.3.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---

Court of Justice

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/2

---

Taking of the oath by a new Member

(2020/C 175/02)

Following his appointment as Advocate General at the Court of Justice for the period from 23 March 2020 to 6 October 2024 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 11 March 2020, (1) Mr Richard de la Tour took the oath before the Court on 23 March 2020.

---

(1)  OJ L 79, 16.3.2020, p. 1.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2020 — Hauptzollamt B v XY

(Case C-87/20)

(2020/C 175/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Hauptzollamt B

Respondent: XY

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 57(5)(a) of Regulation No 865/2006, (1) as amended by Regulation No 2015/870, to be interpreted as meaning that an importer carrying a total of more than 125 grams (g) of caviar of sturgeon species (Acipenseriformes spp.) in individually marked containers, for which he presents neither a (re-)export document nor an import permit, is to be allowed to keep up to 125 g of caviar, provided that the import is not for any of the purposes listed in the first subparagraph of Article 57(1) of Regulation No 865/2006?
  If that question is to be answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 57(5)(a) of Regulation No 865/2006, (1) as amended by Regulation No 2015/870, to be interpreted as meaning that an importer carrying a total of more than 125 grams (g) of caviar of sturgeon species (Acipenseriformes spp.) in individually marked containers, for which he presents neither a (re-)export document nor an import permit, is to be allowed to keep up to 125 g of caviar, provided that the import is not for any of the purposes listed in the first subparagraph of Article 57(1) of Regulation No 865/2006?

If that question is to be answered in the affirmative:

| 2. | Do specimens introduced into the customs territory of the European Union also qualify as personal and household effects within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (2) where the importer declares at the time of introduction that he intends to present the imported items as a gift to other persons? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do specimens introduced into the customs territory of the European Union also qualify as personal and household effects within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (2) where the importer declares at the time of introduction that he intends to present the imported items as a gift to other persons?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation No 865/2006 of 4 May 2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ 2006 L 166, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ 1997 L 61, p. 1).

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 February 2020 — VARCHEV FINANS EOOD v Komisia za finansov nadzor

(Case C-95/20)

(2020/C 175/04)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VARCHEV FINANS EOOD

Defendant: Komisia za finansov nadzor

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 56(2), read in combination with Article 72(2) of and Annex I to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 (1) of 25 April 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive to be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | investment firms must maintain (and keep up to date) a separate single register (in the form of a database) recording the suitability and appropriateness assessments undertaken for each client with the content provided for in Article 25(2) and (3) of Directive 2014/65/EU and Article [56] of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 of 25 April 2016?
  Or does it suffice that the abovementioned data are in the possession of the investment firm and are attached to the record [in the Bulgarian version: ‘file/dossier’] for each client in accordance with Article 25(5) of Directive 2014/65/EU and that that information is stored in a way accessible for future reference by the competent authority and in such a form and manner that the conditions of Article 72(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 are met? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 56(2), read in combination with Article 72(2) of and Annex I to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 (1) of 25 April 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive to be interpreted as meaning that:

—

investment firms must maintain (and keep up to date) a separate single register (in the form of a database) recording the suitability and appropriateness assessments undertaken for each client with the content provided for in Article 25(2) and (3) of Directive 2014/65/EU and Article [56] of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 of 25 April 2016?

Or does it suffice that the abovementioned data are in the possession of the investment firm and are attached to the record [in the Bulgarian version: ‘file/dossier’] for each client in accordance with Article 25(5) of Directive 2014/65/EU and that that information is stored in a way accessible for future reference by the competent authority and in such a form and manner that the conditions of Article 72(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 are met?

| 2. | Is Article 72(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 of 25 April 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive, read in combination with Annex I to that Regulation, to be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | investment firms must maintain (and keep up to date) for all clients a separate single register (in the form of a database) recording the information on costs and ancillary costs provided to each client with the content provided for in Article [50] of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 of 25 April 2016?
  Or does it suffice that the abovementioned data are in the possession of the investment firm and are attached to the record [in the Bulgarian version: ‘file/dossier’] for each client in accordance with Article 25(5) of Directive 2014/65/EU and that that information is stored in a way accessible for future reference by the competent authority and so that the conditions of Article 72(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 are met? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 72(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 of 25 April 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive, read in combination with Annex I to that Regulation, to be interpreted as meaning that:

—

investment firms must maintain (and keep up to date) for all clients a separate single register (in the form of a database) recording the information on costs and ancillary costs provided to each client with the content provided for in Article [50] of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 of 25 April 2016?

Or does it suffice that the abovementioned data are in the possession of the investment firm and are attached to the record [in the Bulgarian version: ‘file/dossier’] for each client in accordance with Article 25(5) of Directive 2014/65/EU and that that information is stored in a way accessible for future reference by the competent authority and so that the conditions of Article 72(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 are met?

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 87, p. 1.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 27 February 2020 — UF v Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)

(Case C-105/20)

(2020/C 175/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Nivelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UF

Defendant: Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the Royal Decree of 20 July 1971 establishing insurance for allowances and maternity insurance for self-employed workers and spouses infringe Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, (1) Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), (2) Council Directive 86/613/EEC of 11 December 1986 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture, in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood (3) and the Framework Agreement on part-time work implemented by Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning part-time work (4) in not providing for an adequate allowance in the context of maternity leave for a self-employed woman who works part-time on a supplementary basis but pays contributions as a worker on a primary basis, whereas a self-employed woman who works part-time on a primary basis receives the full amount of the maternity allowance? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Royal Decree of 20 July 1971 establishing insurance for allowances and maternity insurance for self-employed workers and spouses infringe Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, (1) Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), (2) Council Directive 86/613/EEC of 11 December 1986 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture, in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood (3) and the Framework Agreement on part-time work implemented by Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning part-time work (4) in not providing for an adequate allowance in the context of maternity leave for a self-employed woman who works part-time on a supplementary basis but pays contributions as a worker on a primary basis, whereas a self-employed woman who works part-time on a primary basis receives the full amount of the maternity allowance?

| 2. | Does the Royal Decree of 20 July 1971 establishing insurance for allowances and maternity insurance for self-employed workers and spouses infringe Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), Council Directive 86/613/EEC of 11 December 1986 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture, in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood and the Framework Agreement on part-time work implemented by Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning part-time work in not providing for an adequate allowance in the context of maternity leave for a female worker who, on a full-time basis, combines paid employment with a self-employed activity, whereas a self-employed woman working full-time receives the full amount of the maternity allowance? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Royal Decree of 20 July 1971 establishing insurance for allowances and maternity insurance for self-employed workers and spouses infringe Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), Council Directive 86/613/EEC of 11 December 1986 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture, in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood and the Framework Agreement on part-time work implemented by Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning part-time work in not providing for an adequate allowance in the context of maternity leave for a female worker who, on a full-time basis, combines paid employment with a self-employed activity, whereas a self-employed woman working full-time receives the full amount of the maternity allowance?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.

(3)  OJ 1986 L 359, p. 56.

(4)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/6

---

Appeal brought on 21 February 2020 by Bruno Gollnisch against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 10 December 2019 in Case T-319/19 Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament

(Case C-122/20 P)

(2020/C 175/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bruno Gollnisch (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 10 December 2019 in case number T-319/19; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 10 December 2019 in case number T-319/19;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a fresh judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a fresh judgment;

| — | also order that the sum of EUR 5 000 be paid to the appellant in respect of the costs incurred in the present appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

also order that the sum of EUR 5 000 be paid to the appellant in respect of the costs incurred in the present appeal proceedings;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

If the Court of Justice considers that it has sufficient information, the appellant claims further that the Court of Justice should:

| — | rule on the substance of the case itself; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule on the substance of the case itself;

| — | annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament;

| — | rule on the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance, without prejudice to the claims made against the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule on the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance, without prejudice to the claims made against the order under appeal;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

It is alleged that the order wrongly held that the decision at issue did not individually concern the appellant, that, consequently, his complaint of 27 February 2019 did not constitute a pre-litigation procedure and that, since that complaint was not taken into account, the time limits for the judicial proceedings must be regarded as having expired.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/6

---

Action brought on 4 March 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-125/20)

(2020/C 175/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. C. Becker, M. Jauregui Gomez and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Article 13(1), read together with Annex XI, of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, (1) in so far as, from 2010, the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide NO2 was systematically and persistently exceeded in the zones ES0901 Área de Barcelona, ES0902 Vallès — Baix Llobregat and ES1301 Madrid; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Article 13(1), read together with Annex XI, of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, (1) in so far as, from 2010, the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide NO2 was systematically and persistently exceeded in the zones ES0901 Área de Barcelona, ES0902 Vallès — Baix Llobregat and ES1301 Madrid;

| — | declare that the Kindom of Spain has infringed Article 13(1), read together with Annex XI, of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, in so far as, from 2010, the hourly limit value for nitrogen dioxide NO2 was systematically and persistently exceeded in the zone ES1301 Madrid; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Kindom of Spain has infringed Article 13(1), read together with Annex XI, of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, in so far as, from 2010, the hourly limit value for nitrogen dioxide NO2 was systematically and persistently exceeded in the zone ES1301 Madrid;

| — | declare that, from 11 June 2010, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 23(1) of the abovementioned directive, read together with Annex XV thereof, and in particular the obligation laid down in the second paragraph of Article 23(1) to ensure that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible, by failing to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the exceedance periods for the limit values in the zones ES0901 Área de Barcelona, ES0902 Vallès — Baix Llobregat and ES1301 Madrid were kept as short as possible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, from 11 June 2010, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 23(1) of the abovementioned directive, read together with Annex XV thereof, and in particular the obligation laid down in the second paragraph of Article 23(1) to ensure that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible, by failing to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the exceedance periods for the limit values in the zones ES0901 Área de Barcelona, ES0902 Vallès — Baix Llobregat and ES1301 Madrid were kept as short as possible;

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

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC lays down the Member States’ obligation to ensure that in all the air quality zones, defined in accordance with Article 4 thereof, the levels of nitrogen dioxide do not exceed the limit values laid down in Annex X1 to the directive. That Annex lays down two limit values in respect of nitrogen dioxide, both applicable from 1 January 2010. One limit value has an annual reference: the Member States are not to exceed 40 mg/m3 per calendar year. The other value is hourly: the Member States are not to exceed the value of 200 mg/m3 more than 18 times a calendar year.

Those limit values for NO2 were previously set by Council Directive 99/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air. Article 4 of that directive imposed the obligation on Member States to take the measures necessary to ensure that concentrations of nitrogen dioxide did not exceed those values, laying down in Annex II of that directive a progressive time frame for compliance which specifically set 1 January 2010 as the deadline.

The Kingdom of Spain, by means of the annual information provided for in Article 27 of the directive, sent the average annual values of NO2 to the Commission for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. According to that information, the Kingdom of Spain systematically and persistently exceeded the annual limit values in the zones ES0901 Área de Barcelona, ES0902 Vallès — Baix Llobregat and ES1301 Madrid.

Article 23(1) of the directive lays down the obligation for Member States to adopt air quality plans, in the event that the limit values are exceeded, in which appropriate measures are set out that ensure that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible.

The Kingdom of Spain has not provided, in the air quality plans adopted since the coming into force of Directive 2008/50/EC, adequate and appropriate measures in order to ensure that the exceedance period for those limits in the three affected zones can be kept as short as possible.

---

(1)  OJ 2008, L 152, p. 1.

---

General Court

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-732/16) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by Spain to certain professional football clubs - Guarantee - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Advantage - Firm in difficulty - Private investor test - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Amount of the aid - Recipient of the aid - Principle of non-discrimination - Duty to state reasons)

(2020/C 175/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, G. Cabrera López and D. López Rus, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and M.J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (OJ 2017 L 55, p. 12).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD, in so far as it concerns Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD, in so far as it concerns Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Valencia Club de Fútbol, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings before the Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Valencia Club de Fútbol, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings before the Court;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Elche Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-901/16) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs - Guarantee - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Indirect beneficiary - Whether imputable to the State - Advantage - Private investor test)

(2020/C 175/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (Elche, Spain) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán, M. Clayton and J. Morant Vidal, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (OJ 2017 L 55, p. 12).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD, in so far as it concerns Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD, in so far as it concerns Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Elche Club de Fútbol, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Elche Club de Fútbol, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — Hansol Paper v Commission

(Case T-383/17) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in South Korea - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Dumping margin calculation - Calculation of the injury margin - Determination of injury)

(2020/C 175/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hansol Paper Co. Ltd (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: J.F. Bellis and B. Servais, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix, M. França and N. Kuplewatzky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Hobbelen, J. Rivas Andrés and B. Vleeshouwers, lawyers)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 of 2 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea (OJ 2017 L 114, p. 3), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Removes the document reproduced in Annex A.32 to the application from the case file; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Removes the document reproduced in Annex A.32 to the application from the case file;

| 2. | Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 of 2 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea, in so far as it concerns Hansol Paper Co. Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 of 2 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea, in so far as it concerns Hansol Paper Co. Ltd;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Hansol Paper; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Hansol Paper;

| 4. | Orders the European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — UG v Commission

(Case T-571/17) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS - Termination with notice - Grounds for termination - Conduct in the service and attitude at work incompatible with the interests of the service - Manifest error of assessment - Review of the accuracy of the facts - Lack of evidence - Liability - Material harm - Payment of salaries owed)

(2020/C 175/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UG (represented by: M. Richard and P. Junqueira de Oliveira, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, L. Radu Bouyon and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 17 October 2016 by which the Commission’s Office for ‘Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg’ (OIL) terminated the applicant’s employment contract pursuant to Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union as from 20 August 2017 and, second, compensation for the material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following that decision and the non-material harm she allegedly suffered as a result of the degrading treatment she claims to have been subject to because of her trade union activity and her period of parental leave.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 17 October 2016 terminating the contract of indefinite duration of Ms UG; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 17 October 2016 terminating the contract of indefinite duration of Ms UG;

| 2. | Orders the parties to forward to the Court, within three months of the delivery of this interim judgment, either the jointly agreed amount of financial compensation resulting from the illegality of the decision of 17 October 2016 or, failing agreement, their submissions on that amount; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to forward to the Court, within three months of the delivery of this interim judgment, either the jointly agreed amount of financial compensation resulting from the illegality of the decision of 17 October 2016 or, failing agreement, their submissions on that amount;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — ViaSat v Commission

(Case T-734/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Mobile satellite system operator - Documents provided to the Commission by a candidate selected in a call for tenders - Implied and express refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Overriding public interest - Refusal of partial access)

(2020/C 175/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ViaSat, Inc. (Carlsbad, California, United States) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, L. Marco Perpiñà, P. de Bandt and M. Gherghinaru, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Inmarsat Ventures Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Spontoni, B. Amory, É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers, and A. Howard, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU, first, for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application of 10 July 2017 for access to any information provided by Inmarsat plc, Inmarsat Ventures or its subsidiaries on the occasion of their participation in the European Union call for tenders which led to the adoption of Commission Decision 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2009 L 149, p. 65) and to any exchange of information in that regard between Inmarsat and the Commission, and, secondly, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 180 final of 11 January 2018 refusing access to that information.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no need to rule on the lawfulness of the European Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application of 10 July 2017 for access to all the information provided by Inmarsat plc, Inmarsat Ventures Ltd or its subsidiaries on the occasion of their participation in the European Union call for tenders which led to the adoption of Commission Decision 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) and to any exchange of information in that regard between Inmarsat and the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no need to rule on the lawfulness of the European Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application of 10 July 2017 for access to all the information provided by Inmarsat plc, Inmarsat Ventures Ltd or its subsidiaries on the occasion of their participation in the European Union call for tenders which led to the adoption of Commission Decision 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) and to any exchange of information in that regard between Inmarsat and the Commission;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders ViaSat, Inc., to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission and by Inmarsat Ventures; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders ViaSat, Inc., to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission and by Inmarsat Ventures;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear a quarter of its own costs and to pay a quarter of the costs incurred by ViaSat and by Inmarsat Ventures. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear a quarter of its own costs and to pay a quarter of the costs incurred by ViaSat and by Inmarsat Ventures.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Eurofer v Commission

(Case T-835/17) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine - Termination of the proceedings against imports originating in Serbia - Determination of injury - Cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from more than one country - Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Termination without measures - Article 9(2) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Final disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend the imposition of definitive measures or the termination of an investigation or proceedings without the imposition of measures - Article 20(2) of Regulation 2016/1036)

(2020/C 175/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL (Brussels (Belgium)) (represented by: J. Killick and G. Forwood, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, N. Kuplewatzky and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade (represented by: R. Luff, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1795 of 5 October 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine and terminating the investigation on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Serbia (OJ 2017 L 258, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 –Barata v Parliament

(Case T-81/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Certification procedure - 2016 promotion exercise - Exclusion of the applicant from the final list of officials authorised to take part in the training programme - Article 45a of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence)

(2020/C 175/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: João Miguel Barata (Evere, Belgium) (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of 30 October 2017 by which the Parliament rejected the applicant’s complaint, secondly, the letter of 20 March 2017 containing the opinion of the Joint Certification Procedure Committee recommending that the appointing authority reject the applicant’s appeal, thirdly, the letter of 14 February 2017 notifying him of his results and informing him that a draft list of seven officials selected to take part in the training programme had been drawn up, fourthly, the letter of 8 December 2016 informing the applicant of his results following the first stage of the 2016 certification procedure, fifthly, the letter of 21 December 2016 informing the applicant of the action taken following his request for review and, sixthly, the notice of internal competition 2016/014 of 7 October 2016 communicated to staff on 20 October 2016 and the full draft list of officials admitted for participation in the resulting training programme.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr João Miguel Barata to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr João Miguel Barata to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — QB v ECB

(Case T-215/18) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Appraisal exercise - Appraisal report for 2016 - Author of the appraisal report - Manifest error of assessment - Sick leave - Redeployment - Remuneration - Decision not to award a salary increase - Competence of the author of an act adversely affecting a party - Liability)

(2020/C 175/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and M. Rötting, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2016 and of the decision of the ECB of 23 May 2017 not to award her a salary increase and, in so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of the ECB of 18 September 2017 and of its implicit decision rejecting, respectively, the applicant’s administrative appeal and claim, and, second, compensation in respect of the harm that the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 23 May 2017 not to award QB a salary increase; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 23 May 2017 not to award QB a salary increase;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders QB to bear two thirds of her own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders QB to bear two thirds of her own costs;

| 4. | Orders the ECB to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by QB. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the ECB to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by QB.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 –Veit v ECB

(Case T-474/18) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Remuneration - Competitions - Equality of treatment between internal and external candidates - Classification in step)

(2020/C 175/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sebastian Veit (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Kujath, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and M. Rötting, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking annulment, first, of the ECB’s decision of 3 January 2018 in so far as it attributes to the applicant only salary step 17 in salary band F/G and, second, of the ECB’s decision of 25 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Sebastian Veit to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Sebastian Veit to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1. 10. 2018.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — XB v ECB

(Case T-484/18) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Remuneration - Household allowance - Dependent child allowance - Education and pre-school allowances - Eligibility - Rejection of applications for those allowances - Conditions of Short-Term Employment - Conditions and rules applicable to short-term employment contracts)

(2020/C 175/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: D. Camilleri Podestà and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the ECB’s decisions of 6 November and 4 December 2017 refusing to grant certain allowances and, as required, of the ECB’s decisions of 2 February 2018 rejecting the request for administrative review and of 5 June 2018 rejecting the request for a grievance procedure and, secondly, an order that the ECB pay the sum corresponding to those allowances.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders XB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — LL-Carpenter v Commission

(Case T-531/18) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Motor vehicle market in the Czech Republic - Decision rejecting a complaint - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 175/18)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: LL-CARPENTER s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Nedelka, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, M. Farley and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 4138 final of 26 June 2018, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant regarding infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU allegedly committed by undertakings within the Subaru group in the motor vehicle distribution sector (Case AT.40037 — Carpenter/Subaru).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LL-CARPENTER s. r. o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LL-CARPENTER s. r. o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 –Teeäär v ECB

(Case T-547/18) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Programme of support for transition to a career outside the ECB - Rejection of an application to take part in that programme - Eligibility conditions - Different lengths of service required depending on whether a staff member is in a single salary band or a salary broadband - Allocation to a salary band on the basis of the type of employment - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Manifest error of assessment)

(2020/C 175/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Raivo Teeäär (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: D. Camilleri Podestà and F. Malfrère, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union for, first, annulment of the decision of the ECB of 27 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for the pilot programme of support for transition to a career outside the ECB and, in so far as necessary, the ECB’s decision of 3 July 2018 rejecting the applicant’s special appeal against the abovementioned decision of 27 February 2018 and, secondly, compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Raivo Teeäär to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Raivo Teeäär to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Bonnafous v Commission

(Case T-646/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Audit Report on HR Management in the EACEA - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits)

(2020/C 175/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Laurence Bonnafous (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by A. Blot and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Ehrbar and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFUE seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 6753 final of 9 October 2018 rejecting the application for access to the final 2018 audit report on HR Management in the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) dated 21 January 2018 brought by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laurence Bonnafous to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Laurence Bonnafous to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Alcar Aktiebolag v EUIPO — Alcar Holding (alcar.se)

(Case T-77/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark alcar.se - Earlier EU word mark ALCAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alcar Aktiebolag (Bromma, Sweden) (represented by: M. Ateva, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Alcar Holding GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2018 (Case R 378/2018-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Alcar Holding and Alcar Aktiebolag.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Alcar Aktiebolag to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alcar Aktiebolag to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Gwo Chyang Biotech v EUIPO — Norma (KinGirls)

(Case T-85/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark KinGirls - Earlier German word mark King - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gwo Chyang Biotech Co. Ltd (Tainan City, Taiwan) (represented by: J. Kakoures, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek, A. Söder and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2018 (Case R 718/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. and Gwo Chyang Biotech.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gwo Chyang Biotech Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gwo Chyang Biotech Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA v EUIPO — Heretat Mont-Rubi (SUM011)

(Case T-296/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SUM011 - Prior figurative EU word mark Sumol and prior national word mark SUMOL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: J.M. Pimenta and A.M. Sebastião, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite, J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Heretat Mont-Rubi, SA (Font-Rubi, Spain)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 (Case R 1662/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Heretat Mont-Rubi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — Golden Frog (CHAMELEON)

(Case T-312/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark CHAMELEON - Earlier international and national word marks CHAMELEON - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG (Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Golden Frog GmbH (Meggen, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Messenger, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2019 (Case R 1551/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Wilhelm Sihn jr. and Golden Frog.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Maternus v EUIPO– adp Gauselmann (Jokers WILD Casino)

(Case T-321/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark Jokers WILD Casino - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No genuine use of the trade mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Maternus GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Zöbisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer, A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel and K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2019 (Case R 803/2018-1), relating to revocation proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Maternus.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Maternus GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Maternus GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Conlance v EUIPO — LG Electronics (SONANCE)

(Case T-343/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SONANCE - Earlier national word mark conlance - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Conlance GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Hayn, lawyer)

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2019 (Case R 1085/2018-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Conlance and LG Electronics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Conlance GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Conlance GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss (Packaging for foodstuffs)

(Case T-352/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing packaging for foodstuffs - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - No different overall impression - Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2020/C 175/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gamma-A SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Liguts, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss SIA (Riga) (represented by: J. Alfejeva, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2019 (Case R 2516/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Piejūra SIA and Gamma-A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gamma-A SIA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gamma-A SIA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss (Packaging for foodstuffs)

(Case T-353/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing packaging for foodstuffs - Earlier design - Proof of disclosure - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - No different overall impression - Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2020/C 175/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gamma-A SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Liguts, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss SIA (Riga) (represented by: J. Alfejeva, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 (Case R 2543/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Piejūra SIA and Gamma-A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gamma-A SIA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gamma-A SIA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a twisted cheese)

(Case T-570/19) (1)

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

(2020/C 175/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 (Case R 106/2019-4) relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a twisted cheese as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a twisted cheese)

(Case T-571/19) (1)

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

(2020/C 175/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 (Case R 107/2019-4) relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a twisted cheese as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a twisted cheese)

(Case T-572/19) (1)

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

(2020/C 175/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 (Case R 108/2019-4) relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a twisted cheese as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/24

---

Order of the General Court of 25 March 2020 — Necci v Commission

(Case T-129/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Contract staff - Social security - JSIS - Rejection of the application for membership - Out of time - Substantial new fact - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 175/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Claudio Necci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Meyer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of 18 April 2018 implicitly rejecting the application for membership of the sickness insurance scheme common to the institutions of the European Communities (JSIS), made by the applicant on 18 December 2017.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Claudio Necci shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Claudio Necci shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

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

3.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/25

---

Order of the General Court of 13 March 2020 — Jalkh v Parliament

(Case T-183/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Institutional law - Amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure - Major interpellations - Failure to comply with formal requirements - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Locus standi - Lack of direct concern - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act - Implementing measures - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 175/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvilliers, France) (represented by F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by S. Alonso de León and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 263 TFUE seeking annulment of Parliament Decision P8_TA(2019)0046 of 31 January 2019 on amendments to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure affecting Chapters 1 and 4 of Title I; Chapter 3 of Title V; Chapters 4 and 5 of Title VII; Chapter 1 of Title VIII; Title XII; Title XIV and Annex II (2018/2170(REG)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Jean-François Jalkh shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Jean-François Jalkh shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/26

---

Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Le Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize v Commission and EACEA

(Case T-236/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Europe for Citizens Programme (2014-2020) - Call for applications ‘Town Twinning 2017, second deadline’ (EACEA 36/2014) - Decision of the EACEA rejecting the applicant’s application for failure to meet the eligibility criteria - Commission’s decision rejecting the administrative action relating to the EACEA’s decision - Application submitted by a de facto association - Capacity to be party to legal proceedings - No evidence of legal existence - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 175/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Le Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize (Houffalize, Belgium) (represented by: A. Kettels, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and the ‘Education, Audiovisual and Culture’ Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and N. Durand, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment or variation, first, of the EACEA’s decision of 25 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for a grant in respect of its call for applications ‘Town Twinning 2017, second deadline’ (EACEA 36/2014) and, secondly, of Commission Implementing Decision C (2019) 572 final of 4 February 2019, rejecting the administrative action brought by the applicant under Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the objection of inadmissibility raised by the ‘Education, Audiovisual and Culture’ Executive Agency (EACEA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the objection of inadmissibility raised by the ‘Education, Audiovisual and Culture’ Executive Agency (EACEA).

| 3. | There is no need to rule on the EACEA’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to rule on the EACEA’s application for leave to intervene.

| 4. | Le Comité du Douzelage de Houffalize shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and the EACEA, with the exception of those relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Le Comité du Douzelage de Houffalize shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and the EACEA, with the exception of those relating to the application for leave to intervene.

| 5. | The EACEA shall bear its own costs in relation to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The EACEA shall bear its own costs in relation to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/26

---

Order of the General Court of 25 March 2020 — Lucaccioni v Commission

(Case T-507/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Preparatory act - Action for compensation - Action closely related to the action for annulment - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 175/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Arnaldo Lucaccioni (San Benedetto del Tronto, Italy) (represented by: E. Bonanni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and L. Vernier, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking (i) annulment of the decision of the Commission of 13 September 2018 rejecting the application for the recusal of doctor A, a medical practitioner appointed by the Commission to a medical committee established in the context of a request on the part of the applicant seeking recognition of the aggravation of an occupational disease and (ii) compensation for the harm that the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Arnaldo Lucaccioni is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Arnaldo Lucaccioni is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/27

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 13 March 2020 — Helsingin Bussiliikenne v Commission

(Case T-603/19 R)

(Application for interim measures - State aid - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2020/C 175/36)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by O. Hyvönen and N. Rosenlund, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: the Republic of Finland (represented by J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFUE seeking suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2019) 3152 final of 28 June 2019 on the State aid SA.33846 (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by the Republic of Finland for the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected;

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene by Nobina Oy and Nobina AB and on the request for confidential treatment by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene by Nobina Oy and Nobina AB and on the request for confidential treatment by the European Commission;

| 3. | The costs are reserved, with the exception of those incurred by Nobina Oy and Nobina AB, which shall bear their own costs relating to their application to intervene in the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved, with the exception of those incurred by Nobina Oy and Nobina AB, which shall bear their own costs relating to their application to intervene in the proceedings for interim measures.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/28

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2020 — Aceto Agricultural Chemicals v Commission

(Case T-612/19 R)

(Application for interim relief - Plant protection products - Non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpropham - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2020/C 175/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corp. Ltd (Chester, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, A. Dawes and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/989 of 17 June 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpropham, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 160, p. 11).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/28

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 13 March 2020 — Intertranslations (Intertransleïsions) Metafraseis v Parliament

(Case T-20/20 R)

(Interim measures - Public service contracts - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2020/C 175/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intertranslations (Intertransleïsions) Metafraseis AE (Kallithea, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Toliušis and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures, in the first place, suspending the operation of the decisions of the Parliament of 4 December 2019 which rank the applicant’s tender in the second place for the award of the cascade contract relating to Lot No 5 of the contract for translation services into English in Call for tenders TRA/EU19/2019 and award the first contract arising from that call for tenders to another tenderer, in the second place, suspending the contract concluded with that other tenderer and, in the third place, ordering the Parliament to communicate to the applicant the missing sections of the Evaluation Committee’s statement of reasons.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/29

---

Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (SIENNA SELECTION)

(Case T-130/20)

(2020/C 175/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SIENNA SELECTION — Application for registration No 17 954 903

Contested decision: Decision of the fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2019 in Case R 1675/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

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.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/29

---

Action brought on 9 March 2020 — FC v EASO

(Case T-148/20)

(2020/C 175/40)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: FC (represented by: B. Christianós, lawyer)

Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of EASO No EASO/ED/2019/509 of 18 December 2019 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 5 September 2019 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of EASO No EASO/ED/2019/509 of 18 December 2019 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 5 September 2019 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’),

| — | annul the decision of EASO of 7 June 2019 rejecting the withdrawal, dated 23 May 2019, by the applicant of her resignation of 1 March 2019, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of EASO of 7 June 2019 rejecting the withdrawal, dated 23 May 2019, by the applicant of her resignation of 1 March 2019,

| — | order EASO to pay the applicant, together with interest, the amount corresponding to the remuneration she would have received while remaining in the post she occupied at EASO, that is, from 1 June 2019 until her resumption of her duties at EASO, or otherwise until the end of her contract with EASO or until her recruitment to another post with a corresponding remuneration, amounting to EUR 7 534,03 per month (until 15 July 2019) and EUR 7 777,25 per month (from 16 July 2019), |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to pay the applicant, together with interest, the amount corresponding to the remuneration she would have received while remaining in the post she occupied at EASO, that is, from 1 June 2019 until her resumption of her duties at EASO, or otherwise until the end of her contract with EASO or until her recruitment to another post with a corresponding remuneration, amounting to EUR 7 534,03 per month (until 15 July 2019) and EUR 7 777,25 per month (from 16 July 2019),

| — | order EASO to pay the applicant the total amount of EUR 250 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage and damage to health which she has suffered to date, and |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to pay the applicant the total amount of EUR 250 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage and damage to health which she has suffered to date, and

| — | order EASO to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested Decision No EASO/ED/2019/509 is vitiated for the following reasons:






  — | infringement of the applicant’s right to sound administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; ‘the Charter’), in view of the principle of impartiality, the duty of care and the principle of objectivity as well as the presumption of innocence (first ground for annulment as regards the first plea in law), |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested Decision No EASO/ED/2019/509 is vitiated for the following reasons:

—

infringement of the applicant’s right to sound administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; ‘the Charter’), in view of the principle of impartiality, the duty of care and the principle of objectivity as well as the presumption of innocence (first ground for annulment as regards the first plea in law),

| — | infringement of the applicant’s right to have her interests taken into account by the administration, as deriving from the right to sound administration (Article 41 of the Charter) and from the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials (Article 24 of the Staff Regulations) (second ground for annulment as regards the first plea in law), |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the applicant’s right to have her interests taken into account by the administration, as deriving from the right to sound administration (Article 41 of the Charter) and from the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials (Article 24 of the Staff Regulations) (second ground for annulment as regards the first plea in law),

| — | those unlawful practices and omissions on the part of EASO being vitiated by manifest error of assessment, error of law and inadequate reasoning (third ground for annulment as regards the first plea in law). |
| --- | --- |

—

those unlawful practices and omissions on the part of EASO being vitiated by manifest error of assessment, error of law and inadequate reasoning (third ground for annulment as regards the first plea in law).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Decision No EASO/ED/2019/509 is vitiated for the following reasons:






  — | defects resulting from manifest error of assessment, error of law and inadequate reasoning with regard, in particular, to the submission of resignation under Article 47(b)(ii) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and the possible withdrawal thereof (first ground for annulment as regards the second plea in law), |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Decision No EASO/ED/2019/509 is vitiated for the following reasons:

—

defects resulting from manifest error of assessment, error of law and inadequate reasoning with regard, in particular, to the submission of resignation under Article 47(b)(ii) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and the possible withdrawal thereof (first ground for annulment as regards the second plea in law),

| — | infringement of the applicant’s right to sound administration (Article 41 of the Charter) and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials (Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, applicable by analogy), in particular having regard to her right to have her interests taken into account by the administration (second ground for annulment as regards the second plea in law). |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the applicant’s right to sound administration (Article 41 of the Charter) and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials (Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, applicable by analogy), in particular having regard to her right to have her interests taken into account by the administration (second ground for annulment as regards the second plea in law).

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/30

---

Action brought on 24 March 2020 — Tartu Agro v Commission

(Case T-150/20)

(2020/C 175/41)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: AS Tartu Agro (represented by: T. Järviste, T. Kaurov, M. Peetsalu and M. A. R. Valberg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible;

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of 24 January 2020 on state aid SA.39182 (2017/C), which concerns the grant of alleged illegal aid to Tartu Agro; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 24 January 2020 on state aid SA.39182 (2017/C), which concerns the grant of alleged illegal aid to Tartu Agro;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the application is admissible.






  — | The application is admissible since, according to the contested decision, the applicant is an alleged recipient of state aid. Therefore, that decision concerns it directly and individually. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the application is admissible.

—

The application is admissible since, according to the contested decision, the applicant is an alleged recipient of state aid. Therefore, that decision concerns it directly and individually.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed substantive and procedural rules when it assessed whether the transaction was in line with market conditions on the basis of the tender procedure, failed to meet the burden of proof and erred in its interpretation of the facts.






  — | The Commission ought to have taken into consideration the temporal context of the time of conclusion of the lease contract, the economic considerations at the time and the standards of interpretation applicable at that time. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed substantive and procedural rules when it assessed whether the transaction was in line with market conditions on the basis of the tender procedure, failed to meet the burden of proof and erred in its interpretation of the facts.

—

The Commission ought to have taken into consideration the temporal context of the time of conclusion of the lease contract, the economic considerations at the time and the standards of interpretation applicable at that time.

| — | The Commission erred in its conclusion that the tender procedure failed to meet the requirements which guarantee the respect of market conditions, since the terms of the tender procedure on the whole had ensured the maximisation of the State’s profit. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission erred in its conclusion that the tender procedure failed to meet the requirements which guarantee the respect of market conditions, since the terms of the tender procedure on the whole had ensured the maximisation of the State’s profit.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed substantive and procedural rules when it ascertained whether the rate agreed in the lease contract was in line with market conditions, infringed the rules governing the burden of proof in its assessment of the existence of state aid and erred in its interpretation of the facts.






  — | The Commission established the existence of state aid based on irrelevant and incomplete data. It ought to have established that the investments in land improvement, the costs for land maintenance and the improvement in the quality of the soil were included in the lease in full. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed substantive and procedural rules when it ascertained whether the rate agreed in the lease contract was in line with market conditions, infringed the rules governing the burden of proof in its assessment of the existence of state aid and erred in its interpretation of the facts.

—

The Commission established the existence of state aid based on irrelevant and incomplete data. It ought to have established that the investments in land improvement, the costs for land maintenance and the improvement in the quality of the soil were included in the lease in full.

| — | The Commission erred when it failed to take into account that the alleged economic advantage resulting from the lease contract was in any event eliminated in 2002 at the latest with the privatisation and the merger of the applicant and the owner of its shares. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission erred when it failed to take into account that the alleged economic advantage resulting from the lease contract was in any event eliminated in 2002 at the latest with the privatisation and the merger of the applicant and the owner of its shares.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed legal provisions in its determination of the amount of the advantage and erred in its assessment of the facts.






  — | The Commission erred in its use of arithmetic means and statistical lease rates in the assessment and breached its obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed legal provisions in its determination of the amount of the advantage and erred in its assessment of the facts.

—

The Commission erred in its use of arithmetic means and statistical lease rates in the assessment and breached its obligation to state reasons.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed legal provisions and erred in its assessment of the facts when it categorised the facts as new aid.






  — | Any allegedly granted aid was granted prior to Estonia’s accession to the European Union and had completely terminated at the time of the accession, whereas the undertaking was privatised in 2001 and the applicant merged with the owner of its shares in 2002. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed legal provisions and erred in its assessment of the facts when it categorised the facts as new aid.

—

Any allegedly granted aid was granted prior to Estonia’s accession to the European Union and had completely terminated at the time of the accession, whereas the undertaking was privatised in 2001 and the applicant merged with the owner of its shares in 2002.

| 6. | The Commission fundamentally infringed legal provisions and erred in its interpretation of the facts when it considered the aid to be obsolete only in part.






  — | The Commission ought to have concluded that the state aid allegedly resulting from the lease contract had terminated in 2002 at the latest with the merger of the applicant and the owner of its shares and is therefore obsolete in full. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

The Commission fundamentally infringed legal provisions and erred in its interpretation of the facts when it considered the aid to be obsolete only in part.

—

The Commission ought to have concluded that the state aid allegedly resulting from the lease contract had terminated in 2002 at the latest with the merger of the applicant and the owner of its shares and is therefore obsolete in full.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed legal provisions when it imposed on the Republic of Estonia the obligation to recover the aid, contrary to the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.






  — | There are special circumstances to the effect that recovery from the applicant would be highly inequitable, as the applicant was not obliged to recognise the existence of state aid. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed legal provisions when it imposed on the Republic of Estonia the obligation to recover the aid, contrary to the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

—

There are special circumstances to the effect that recovery from the applicant would be highly inequitable, as the applicant was not obliged to recognise the existence of state aid.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed legal provisions and erred in its interpretation of the facts when it categorised the aid as being incompatible with the internal market.






  — | The parties demonstrated in substance how the lease contract contributed to the promotion of economic development; however, the Commission failed to address that matter as to its substance. |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed legal provisions and erred in its interpretation of the facts when it categorised the aid as being incompatible with the internal market.

—

The parties demonstrated in substance how the lease contract contributed to the promotion of economic development; however, the Commission failed to address that matter as to its substance.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/32

---

Action brought on 16 March 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-151/20)

(2020/C 175/42)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and O. Serdula, Agents)

Defendant: European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the European Union, represented by the European Commission, to restore to the Czech Republic the sum of CZK 40 482 255 on the basis of unjust enrichment, that sum having been paid, conditionally, into the Commission’s account on 17 March 2015 for no legal reason; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union, represented by the European Commission, to restore to the Czech Republic the sum of CZK 40 482 255 on the basis of unjust enrichment, that sum having been paid, conditionally, into the Commission’s account on 17 March 2015 for no legal reason;

| — | order the European Union, represented by the European Commission, to restore to the Czech Republic the sum of CZK 2 698 817 on the basis of unjust enrichment, that sum having been paid, conditionally, into the Commission’s account on 22 December 2016 for no legal reason; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union, represented by the European Commission, to restore to the Czech Republic the sum of CZK 2 698 817 on the basis of unjust enrichment, that sum having been paid, conditionally, into the Commission’s account on 22 December 2016 for no legal reason;

| — | order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The applicant claims that the amount in dispute corresponds to unrecovered customs duty on the import of flint lighters from Laos amounting to CZK 53 976 340 minus collection costs. On 17 March 2015, the sum of CZK 40 482 255 (75 % of the unrecovered customs duty) was conditionally paid into the Commission’s account, following the Commission’s formal notice dated 21 January 2015. On 22 December 2016, the sum of CZK 2 698 817 (5 % of the unrecovered customs duty) was paid into the Commission’s account, following the Commission’s request for payment of the difference corresponding to the increase in the contribution paid to the Union to 80 %.

There was no legal reason for the payment of that sum into the Commission’s account, since the customs duty concerned could not be collected for reasons which cannot be attributed to the Czech Republic. Under Article 17(2)(b) of Regulation No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 (1) the Czech Republic was therefore released from the obligation to place the disputed sum at the Commission’s disposal.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/33

---

Action brought on 27 March 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 v Commission

(Case T-161/20)

(2020/C 175/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ighoga Region 10 eV (Ingolstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Bartosch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should declare that the defendant infringed its obligations under the TFEU in that, even after almost 2 3⁄4 years have elapsed since the complaint has been lodged and, following the request to adopt a final decision to close the procedure, the defendant did not take a formal decision in accordance with one of the possible alternatives set out in Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure in State aid cases, but rather failed to act.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is brought against the Commission’s failure to act in connection with the adoption of a decision concerning the applicant’s complaint of 4 July 2017 on EU State aid in case SA.48582 — presumed State aid for Maritim-Gruppe and KHI Immobilien GmbH.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/33

---

Action brought on 20 March 2020 — Tornado Boats International v EUIPO — Haygreen (TORNADO)

(Case T-167/20)

(2020/C 175/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tornado Boats International ApS (Lystrup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: David Haygreen (Colwyn Bay, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark TORNADO — European Union trade mark No 10 097 368

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2020 in Case R 1169/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the cancellation. |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the cancellation.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/34

---

Action brought on 4 April 2020 — Comune di Stintino v Commission

(Case T-174/20)

(2020/C 175/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Comune di Stintino (represented by: G. Machiavelli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the measure set out in notification Ref. Ares(2020)734033-05/02/2020 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Environment, Directorate A — ENV.A — Policy, Coordination, LIFE Governance and Resources, ENV. A.4. — LIFE Governance, Administration, IT and Support Services Head of Unit, providing for the reduction of the funding granted to the Comune di Stintino (Municipality of Stintino, Italy) for the programme ‘LIFE10 NAT/IT/000244 — ST.e.R.N.A.’ and ordering the repayment of the excess sums already granted; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure set out in notification Ref. Ares(2020)734033-05/02/2020 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Environment, Directorate A — ENV.A — Policy, Coordination, LIFE Governance and Resources, ENV. A.4. — LIFE Governance, Administration, IT and Support Services Head of Unit, providing for the reduction of the funding granted to the Comune di Stintino (Municipality of Stintino, Italy) for the programme ‘LIFE10 NAT/IT/000244 — ST.e.R.N.A.’ and ordering the repayment of the excess sums already granted;

| — | annul Debit Note No 3242002652 of the European Commission of 24 February 2020 requesting the Comune di Stintino (Municipality of Stintino) to pay the amount of EUR 447 078,63 by way of reimbursement of the amount no longer payable as a result of the abovementioned measure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Debit Note No 3242002652 of the European Commission of 24 February 2020 requesting the Comune di Stintino (Municipality of Stintino) to pay the amount of EUR 447 078,63 by way of reimbursement of the amount no longer payable as a result of the abovementioned measure;

| — | annul the measure set out in notification Ref. Ares (2019)6551262-23/10/2019 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Environment, Directorate AENV. A — Policy, Coordination, LIFE, Governance and Resources, ENV. A4 LIFE Governance, Administration, IT and Support Services Head of Unit, establishing the proportion of the ineligible costs relating to the funding referred to above, giving the Comune di Stintino (Municipality of Stintino) 30 days to raise any objections (doc R3); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure set out in notification Ref. Ares (2019)6551262-23/10/2019 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Environment, Directorate AENV. A — Policy, Coordination, LIFE, Governance and Resources, ENV. A4 LIFE Governance, Administration, IT and Support Services Head of Unit, establishing the proportion of the ineligible costs relating to the funding referred to above, giving the Comune di Stintino (Municipality of Stintino) 30 days to raise any objections (doc R3);

| — | annul all preliminary, consequential and/or connected acts or measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all preliminary, consequential and/or connected acts or measures.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | General action plan: infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of Article 15 and Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and infringement of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; failure to state adequate reasons, since it is not clear how the percentage reduction applied was determined; |
| --- | --- |

1.

General action plan: infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of Article 15 and Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and infringement of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; failure to state adequate reasons, since it is not clear how the percentage reduction applied was determined;

| 2. | General action plan: infringement of essential procedural requirements, failure to observe the principle of proportionality and infringement of Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, since the reduction is not proportionate to the action taken; |
| --- | --- |

2.

General action plan: infringement of essential procedural requirements, failure to observe the principle of proportionality and infringement of Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, since the reduction is not proportionate to the action taken;

| 3. | General action plan: infringement of essential procedural requirements, failure to observe the principle of proportionality and infringement of Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, since the percentage of the project that has been carried out is greater than that applied for the reduction; |
| --- | --- |

3.

General action plan: infringement of essential procedural requirements, failure to observe the principle of proportionality and infringement of Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, since the percentage of the project that has been carried out is greater than that applied for the reduction;

| 4. | Purchase of land and environmental restoration of the lagoon, its channel and its mouths: infringement of essential procedural requirements, failure to observe the principle of proportionality and infringement of Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union and of Article 35.1 of the Common Rules governing financing, as well as breach of legitimate expectations, since the contested acts infringe the laws referred to above, and since it is not disputed that the action was performed in full. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Purchase of land and environmental restoration of the lagoon, its channel and its mouths: infringement of essential procedural requirements, failure to observe the principle of proportionality and infringement of Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union and of Article 35.1 of the Common Rules governing financing, as well as breach of legitimate expectations, since the contested acts infringe the laws referred to above, and since it is not disputed that the action was performed in full.

| 5. | Monitoring of the area and environmental education, and Accessible Ecological Network: infringement of essential procedural requirements, failure to observe the principle of proportionality, infringement of Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, infringement of Article 18 of the Common Rules governing financing and breach of legitimate expectations, since the action was performed in full and the delays complained of do not affect the implementation in the long term of dissemination activities. Indeed, it is claimed the action was entirely completed in so far as possible given the environmental constraints; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Monitoring of the area and environmental education, and Accessible Ecological Network: infringement of essential procedural requirements, failure to observe the principle of proportionality, infringement of Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, infringement of Article 18 of the Common Rules governing financing and breach of legitimate expectations, since the action was performed in full and the delays complained of do not affect the implementation in the long term of dissemination activities. Indeed, it is claimed the action was entirely completed in so far as possible given the environmental constraints;

| 6. | Project coordination: Breach of legitimate expectations, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of Article 15 and Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, infringement of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, failure to state adequate reasons, failure to observe the principle of proportionality, infringement of Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union and of Article 18 of the Common Rules governing financing, since it is not clear how the percentage reduction was calculated and, in any event, the percentage reduction applied is not proportionate to the work carried out. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Project coordination: Breach of legitimate expectations, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of Article 15 and Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, infringement of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, failure to state adequate reasons, failure to observe the principle of proportionality, infringement of Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union and of Article 18 of the Common Rules governing financing, since it is not clear how the percentage reduction was calculated and, in any event, the percentage reduction applied is not proportionate to the work carried out.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/35

---

Action brought on 31 March 2020 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sanolie (SANOLIE)

(Case T-175/20)

(2020/C 175/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sanolie (Istanbul, Turkey)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SANOLIE — Application for registration No 17 042 292

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2020 in Case R 2405/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in relation to the grant for the goods sought: ‘body cream; face cream; body oils; facial oils; oils for cosmetic use’ in Class 3; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in relation to the grant for the goods sought: ‘body cream; face cream; body oils; facial oils; oils for cosmetic use’ in Class 3;

| — | reject the application for European Union trade mark No 17 042 292 ‘SANOLIE’ with regard to the aforementioned goods, ‘body cream; face cream; body oils; facial oils; oils for cosmetic use’ in Class 3; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application for European Union trade mark No 17 042 292 ‘SANOLIE’ with regard to the aforementioned goods, ‘body cream; face cream; body oils; facial oils; oils for cosmetic use’ in Class 3;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/36

---

Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Riginos Emporiki kai Mesitiki v EUIPO — Honda Motor (ONDA 1962)

(Case T-548/19) (1)

(2020/C 175/47)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---