# Official Journal C 261/24 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 261 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6624 July 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 261

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6624 July 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2023/C 261/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2023/C 261/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2023/C 261/02 | Case C-546/21 P: Appeal brought on 31 August 2021 by the Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2021 in Case T-42/21 Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v European Parliament | 2 |
| 2023/C 261/03 | Case C-750/22 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2022 by WV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2022 in Case T-618/21, WV v CdT | 2 |
| 2023/C 261/04 | Case C-123/23, Khan Yunis: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 1 March 2023 — N. A. K., E. A. K., Y. A. K v Bundesrepublik Deutschland | 2 |
| 2023/C 261/05 | Case C-179/22, AR: Order of the President of the Court of 7 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against AR | 3 |
| 2023/C 261/06 | Case C-398/21, Conseil national des barreaux and Others: Order of the President of the Court of 7 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Conseil national des barreaux, Conférence des bâtonniers, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Paris v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance, in the presence of: Ordre des avocats du barreau des Hauts-de-Seine | 3 |
| 2023/C 261/07 | Case C-248/22, The Minister for Justice and Equality: Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Z.K., M.S. v The Minister for Justice and Equality | 3 |
| 2023/C 261/08 | Case C-460/22, DIGI: Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — DIGI Távközlési és Szolgáltató Kft. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság | 4 |
| 2023/C 261/09 | Case C-463/21, Global Starnet: Order of the President of the Court of 15 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri, interested parties: Sisal Entertainment SpA, Magic Games Sas di A. Malfatti, Magic Games Srl, Codacons | 4 |
| 2023/C 261/10 | Case C-202/23, Baabda and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2023 — M.E.O. v Federal Republic of Germany | 4 |
| 2023/C 261/11 | Case C-217/23, Laghman: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 April 2023 — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl | 5 |
| 2023/C 261/12 | Case C-219/23, Dudea: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 5 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against Ş.C.F. and H.F.I. | 6 |
| 2023/C 261/13 | Case C-223/23, Redu: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 11 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against L.D. | 7 |
| 2023/C 261/14 | Case C-229/23, HYA and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against SS, IP, ZI, DD, HYA | 8 |
| 2023/C 261/15 | Case C-243/23, Drebers: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 18 April 2023 — Belgian State / Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v L BV | 9 |
| 2023/C 261/16 | Case C-253/23, ASG: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Dortmund (Germany) lodged on 20 April 2023 — ASG 2 Ausgleichsgesellschaft für die Sägeindustrie Nordrhein-Westfalen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen | 10 |
| 2023/C 261/17 | Case C-277/23, Ministarstvo financija: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 28 April 2023 — E.P. v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak | 10 |
| 2023/C 261/18 | Case C-278/23, Biltena: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 April 2023 — M.M., as heir of M.R. v Ministero della Difesa | 11 |
| 2023/C 261/19 | Case C-281/23 P: Appeal brought on 30 April 2023 by Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A., RTE Réseau de transport d'électricité, Svenska kraftnät, TenneT TSO BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 February 2023 in Case T-606/20, Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER | 12 |
| 2023/C 261/20 | Case C-282/23 P: Appeal brought on 30 April 2023 by Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A., RTE Réseau de transport d'électricité, Svenska kraftnät, TenneT TSO BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 February 2023 in Case T-607/20, Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER | 13 |
| 2023/C 261/21 | Case C-288/23, El Baheer: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 3 May 2023 — HE v Federal Republic of Germany | 14 |
| 2023/C 261/22 | Case C-307/23, G GmbH: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 May 2023 — G GmbH v Hauptzollamt H | 15 |
| 2023/C 261/23 | Case C-56/23, Riaman: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Bistriţa — Romania) — LO v Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bistriţa, RS, TU and VW (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirement to present the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility) | 16 |
| 2023/C 261/24 | Case C-318/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia | 16 |
| 2023/C 261/25 | Case C-49/22, Austrian Airlines (Repatriation flight): Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Austrian Airlines AG v TW (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(1)(a) — Cancellation of a flight — Article 8(1) — Obligation to provide assistance — Concept of re-routing — Compensation for air passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight — COVID-19 pandemic — Repatriation flight organised by a Member State in the context of consular assistance — Flight operated by the same operating air carrier and at the same time as the cancelled flight — Costs to be borne by the passenger in excess of the net costs of that flight) | 17 |
| 2023/C 261/26 | Case C-50/21, Prestige and Limousine: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de — Spain) — Prestige and Limousine SL v Área Metropolitana de Barcelona, Asociación Nacional del Taxi (Antaxi), Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi, Sindicat del Taxi de Catalunya (STAC), Tapoca VTC1 SL, Agrupació Taxis Companys (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Article 107(1) TFEU — Private-hire vehicles (PHVs) — Licencing scheme involving the issue, in addition to a licence to provide urban and interurban transport services throughout the national territory, of a second operating licence in order to be able to provide urban transport services in a metropolitan area — Limitation of the number of licences for PHV services to one thirtieth of the licences for taxi services) | 18 |
| 2023/C 261/27 | Case C-322/22, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — E. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of sincere cooperation — Principle of effectiveness — Tax levied by a Member State in breach of EU law — Breach established following a ruling of the Court of Justice — Right to be paid interest on the overpayment — National legislation limiting the right to the payment of interest to the period running until the thirtieth day following the publication of the ruling of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union) | 19 |
| 2023/C 261/28 | Case C-407/21, UFC– Que choisir and CLCV: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir), Consommation, logement et cadre de vie (CLCV) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Package travel and linked travel arrangements — Directive (EU) 2015/2302 — Article 12(2) to (4) — Termination of a package travel contract — Unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances — COVID-19 pandemic — Refund of payments made by the traveller concerned for a package — Refund in the form of a sum of money or equivalent refund in the form of a credit note (voucher) — Obligation to provide that traveller with a refund not later than 14 days after the relevant contract is terminated — Temporary derogation from that obligation — Adjustment of the temporal effects of a decision which is taken in accordance with national law and which annuls national legislation that is contrary to that obligation) | 20 |
| 2023/C 261/29 | Case C-408/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 — Council of the European Union v Laurent Pech, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeal — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), second indent — Protection of legal advice — Article 4(3), first subparagraph — Protection of the decision-making process — Refusal to grant full access to a legal opinion of the Council of the European Union’s Legal Service) | 21 |
| 2023/C 261/30 | Joined Cases C-430/22 and C-468/22, VB (information for a person convicted in absentia) and Another: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against VB (C-430/22), VB (C-468/22) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Article 8(4) — Right to be present at the trial — Proceedings conducted in absentia — Reopening of the proceedings — Notice to the person convicted in absentia of his or her right to have the proceedings reopened) | 22 |
| 2023/C 261/31 | Case C-455/21, Lyoness Europe: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Olt — Romania) — OZ v Lyoness Europe AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 2(b) — Definition of consumer — Contract for membership of a loyalty scheme enabling certain financial benefits to be obtained when purchasing goods and services from third-party traders) | 22 |
| 2023/C 261/32 | Case C-468/20, Fastweb and Others (Time frame for billing): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Fastweb SpA, TIM SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Article 56 TFUE — Freedom to provide services — National legislation granting the national regulatory authority the power to impose on telephony service providers a minimum time frame for the renewal of offers and a minimum time frame for billing — Consumer protection — Principle of proportionality — Principle of equal treatment) | 23 |
| 2023/C 261/33 | Case C-540/21: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2023 — European Commission v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Package travel and linked travel arrangements — Directive (EU) 2015/2302 — Article 12(2) to (4) — Termination of a package travel contract — Unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances — COVID-19 pandemic — Refund of payments made by the traveller for the package — Refund in the form of a sum of money or in the form of a replacement package tour — Obligation to provide that traveller with a refund not later than 14 days after the relevant contract is terminated — Temporary derogation from that obligation) | 24 |
| 2023/C 261/34 | Case C-545/21, ANAS: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (ANAS) v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — European Union Structural Funds — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 2(7) — Concept of irregularity — Article 98(1) and (2) — Financial corrections by Member States in connection with irregularities detected — Criteria to be applied — Directive 2004/18/EC — Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) — Concept of grave professional misconduct) | 24 |
| 2023/C 261/35 | Case C-567/21, BNP Paribas: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — BNP Paribas SA v TR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 33 and 36 — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Question raised incidentally before the courts of another Member State — Effects produced by that judgment in the State of origin — Admissibility of an action brought in the Member State addressed after that judgment — National procedural rules imposing the concentration of claims in a single set of proceedings) | 25 |
| 2023/C 261/36 | Case C-570/21, YYY (concept of consumer): Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — I.S., K.S. v YYY. S.A. (Request for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Dual-purpose contract — Article 2(b) — Concept of consumer — Criteria) | 26 |
| 2023/C 261/37 | Case C-636/21, Regione Lombardia (Market support measures related to animal diseases): Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — NN v Regione Lombardia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Article 220 — Market support measures related to animal diseases — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323 — Exceptional market support measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy — National legislation — Condition for the granting of aid — Farmers operational on the market in question on the date of submission of the application — Discretion of the Member States) | 27 |
| 2023/C 261/38 | Case C-640/21, Zes Zollner Electronic: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — SC Zes Zollner Electronic SRL v Direcţia Regională Vamală Cluj — Biroul Vamal de Frontieră Aeroport Cluj Napoca (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Union Customs Code — Excess quantity of goods discovered after the release of the goods — Article 173 — Amendment of a customs declaration — Goods other than those originally covered by the declaration to amend — Article 174 — Invalidation of a customs declaration — Article 42 — Penalties imposed by the customs authorities responsible — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446) | 27 |
| 2023/C 261/39 | Case C-654/21, LM (Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity): Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — LM v KP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Dispute before the national court — Jurisdiction of EU trade mark courts — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 124 — Action for infringement — Article 128 — Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity — Subject matter of that counterclaim — Article 129(3) — Rules of procedure governing the same type of action relating to a national trade mark — Principle of procedural autonomy) | 28 |
| 2023/C 261/40 | Joined Cases C-747/21 P and C-748/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 June 2023 — PAO Severstal (C-747/21 P), Novolipetsk Steel PJSC (NLMK) (C-748/21 P) v European Commission, Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1328 — Imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 18(1) — Necessary information — Absence — Article 9(4) — Lesser duty rule — Target price — Profit margin of the Union industry — Establishment — Selection of the most recent representative year — Article 2(9) — Construction of the export price — Injury to the Union industry — Application by analogy — Calculation of the underselling margin — Statement of reasons) | 29 |
| | General Court |
| 2023/C 261/41 | Case T-309/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — TC v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Rules governing expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Reasonable time — Burden of proof — Right to be heard — Protection of personal data — Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations) | 30 |
| 2023/C 261/42 | Case T-33/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Vallegre v EUIPO — Joseph Phelps Vineyards (PORTO INSÍGNIA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark PORTO INSÍGNIA — Earlier EU word mark INSIGNIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 30 |
| 2023/C 261/43 | Case T-47/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — DDR Kultur v EUIPO — Groupe Canal+ (THE PLANET) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark THE PLANET — Earlier EU figurative mark PLANÈTE + — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 31 |
| 2023/C 261/44 | Case T-63/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Brooks England v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (BROOKS ENGLAND) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BROOKS ENGLAND — Earlier EU word mark BROOKS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 32 |
| 2023/C 261/45 | Joined Cases T-218/22 and 219/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Roxtec and Wallmax v EUIPO — Wallmax and Roxtec (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative trade mark representing a blue square containing eight concentric black circles — absolute ground of invalidity — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 32 |
| 2023/C 261/46 | Case T-339/22: Judgement of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Chocolates Lacasa Internacional v EUIPO — Esquitino Madrid (Conguitos) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Conguitos — Earlier EU word mark Conguitos — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Relative ground for invalidity — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 33 |
| 2023/C 261/47 | Case T-368/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cassa Centrale v EUIPO — Bankia (BANQUÌ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark BANQUÌ — Earlier EU figurative mark Bankia — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Distinctive character of the earlier mark) | 34 |
| 2023/C 261/48 | Case T-519/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS) (EU trade mark — Procedure for the revocation of decisions or the cancellation of entries — Revocation of a decision containing an obvious error attributable to EUIPO — Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No obvious error) | 35 |
| 2023/C 261/49 | Case T-541/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Sanity Group v EUIPO — AC Marca Brands (Sanity Group) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Sanity Group — Earlier EU figurative mark SANYTOL — Relative ground for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 35 |
| 2023/C 261/50 | Case T-543/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — BRM Extremities (BIOPLAN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark BIOPLAN — Earlier national word mark BIOPLAK — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 36 |
| 2023/C 261/51 | Case T-221/23: Action brought on 26 April 2023 — WS v EUIPO | 36 |
| 2023/C 261/52 | Case T-232/23: Action brought on 3 May 2023 — LW v Commission | 37 |
| 2023/C 261/53 | Case T-261/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Acampora and Others v Commission | 38 |
| 2023/C 261/54 | Case T-299/23: Action brought on 30 May 2023 — Hexal v Commission | 39 |
| 2023/C 261/55 | Case T-306/23: Action brought on 30 May 2023 — Red Bull and Others v Commission | 40 |
| 2023/C 261/56 | Case T-309/23: Action brought on 5 June 2023 — Aliud Pharma v Commission | 41 |
| 2023/C 261/57 | Case T-312/23: Action brought on 7 June 2023 — Naturgy Energy Group v EUIPO — Global Power Service (gps global power service) | 42 |
| 2023/C 261/58 | Case T-313/23: Action brought on 8 June 2023 — Adeva v EUIPO — Sideme (MAISON CAVIST.) | 43 |
| 2023/C 261/59 | Case T-314/23: Action brought on 8 June 2023 — Tiendanimal v EUIPO (CRIADORES) | 43 |
| 2023/C 261/60 | Case T-316/23: Action brought on 9 June 2023 — Pfriem v EUIPO — U-Control (UC) | 44 |
| 2023/C 261/61 | Case T-318/23: Action brought on 12 June 2023 — J&B v EUIPO — Ergün (J&B BRO) | 45 |
| 2023/C 261/62 | Case T-320/23: Action brought on 12 June 2023 — The Not Company v EUIPO (NOT MILK) | 45 |
| 2023/C 261/63 | Case T-322/23: Action brought on 12 June 2023 — VN v Commission | 46 |
| 2023/C 261/64 | Case T-324/23: Action brought on 13 June 2023 — J. García Carrión v EUIPO — Calipso (LimoLife) | 47 |
| 2023/C 261/65 | Case T-569/22: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2023 — QZ v EIB | 48 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2023/C 261/02

Case C-546/21 P: Appeal brought on 31 August 2021 by the Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2021 in Case T-42/21 Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v European Parliament

2

2023/C 261/03

Case C-750/22 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2022 by WV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2022 in Case T-618/21, WV v CdT

WV

CdT

2

2023/C 261/04

Case C-123/23, Khan Yunis: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 1 March 2023 — N. A. K., E. A. K., Y. A. K v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

2

2023/C 261/05

Case C-179/22, AR: Order of the President of the Court of 7 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against AR

3

2023/C 261/06

Case C-398/21, Conseil national des barreaux and Others: Order of the President of the Court of 7 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Conseil national des barreaux, Conférence des bâtonniers, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Paris v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance, in the presence of: Ordre des avocats du barreau des Hauts-de-Seine

in the presence of:

3

2023/C 261/07

Case C-248/22, The Minister for Justice and Equality: Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Z.K., M.S. v The Minister for Justice and Equality

3

2023/C 261/08

Case C-460/22, DIGI: Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — DIGI Távközlési és Szolgáltató Kft. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság

4

2023/C 261/09

Case C-463/21, Global Starnet: Order of the President of the Court of 15 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri, interested parties: Sisal Entertainment SpA, Magic Games Sas di A. Malfatti, Magic Games Srl, Codacons

interested parties:

4

2023/C 261/10

Case C-202/23, Baabda and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2023 — M.E.O. v Federal Republic of Germany

4

2023/C 261/11

Case C-217/23, Laghman: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 April 2023 — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

5

2023/C 261/12

Case C-219/23, Dudea: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 5 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against Ş.C.F. and H.F.I.

6

2023/C 261/13

Case C-223/23, Redu: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 11 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against L.D.

7

2023/C 261/14

Case C-229/23, HYA and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against SS, IP, ZI, DD, HYA

8

2023/C 261/15

Case C-243/23, Drebers: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 18 April 2023 — Belgian State / Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v L BV

9

2023/C 261/16

Case C-253/23, ASG: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Dortmund (Germany) lodged on 20 April 2023 — ASG 2 Ausgleichsgesellschaft für die Sägeindustrie Nordrhein-Westfalen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

10

2023/C 261/17

Case C-277/23, Ministarstvo financija: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 28 April 2023 — E.P. v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

10

2023/C 261/18

Case C-278/23, Biltena: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 April 2023 — M.M., as heir of M.R. v Ministero della Difesa

11

2023/C 261/19

Case C-281/23 P: Appeal brought on 30 April 2023 by Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A., RTE Réseau de transport d'électricité, Svenska kraftnät, TenneT TSO BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 February 2023 in Case T-606/20, Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER

12

2023/C 261/20

Case C-282/23 P: Appeal brought on 30 April 2023 by Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A., RTE Réseau de transport d'électricité, Svenska kraftnät, TenneT TSO BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 February 2023 in Case T-607/20, Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER

13

2023/C 261/21

Case C-288/23, El Baheer: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 3 May 2023 — HE v Federal Republic of Germany

14

2023/C 261/22

Case C-307/23, G GmbH: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 May 2023 — G GmbH v Hauptzollamt H

15

2023/C 261/23

Case C-56/23, Riaman: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Bistriţa — Romania) — LO v Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bistriţa, RS, TU and VW (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirement to present the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)

16

2023/C 261/24

Case C-318/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

16

2023/C 261/25

Case C-49/22, Austrian Airlines (Repatriation flight): Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Austrian Airlines AG v TW (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(1)(a) — Cancellation of a flight — Article 8(1) — Obligation to provide assistance — Concept of re-routing — Compensation for air passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight — COVID-19 pandemic — Repatriation flight organised by a Member State in the context of consular assistance — Flight operated by the same operating air carrier and at the same time as the cancelled flight — Costs to be borne by the passenger in excess of the net costs of that flight)

17

2023/C 261/26

Case C-50/21, Prestige and Limousine: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de — Spain) — Prestige and Limousine SL v Área Metropolitana de Barcelona, Asociación Nacional del Taxi (Antaxi), Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi, Sindicat del Taxi de Catalunya (STAC), Tapoca VTC1 SL, Agrupació Taxis Companys (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Article 107(1) TFEU — Private-hire vehicles (PHVs) — Licencing scheme involving the issue, in addition to a licence to provide urban and interurban transport services throughout the national territory, of a second operating licence in order to be able to provide urban transport services in a metropolitan area — Limitation of the number of licences for PHV services to one thirtieth of the licences for taxi services)

18

2023/C 261/27

Case C-322/22, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — E. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of sincere cooperation — Principle of effectiveness — Tax levied by a Member State in breach of EU law — Breach established following a ruling of the Court of Justice — Right to be paid interest on the overpayment — National legislation limiting the right to the payment of interest to the period running until the thirtieth day following the publication of the ruling of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union)

19

2023/C 261/28

Case C-407/21, UFC– Que choisir and CLCV: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir), Consommation, logement et cadre de vie (CLCV) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Package travel and linked travel arrangements — Directive (EU) 2015/2302 — Article 12(2) to (4) — Termination of a package travel contract — Unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances — COVID-19 pandemic — Refund of payments made by the traveller concerned for a package — Refund in the form of a sum of money or equivalent refund in the form of a credit note (voucher) — Obligation to provide that traveller with a refund not later than 14 days after the relevant contract is terminated — Temporary derogation from that obligation — Adjustment of the temporal effects of a decision which is taken in accordance with national law and which annuls national legislation that is contrary to that obligation)

20

2023/C 261/29

Case C-408/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 — Council of the European Union v Laurent Pech, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeal — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), second indent — Protection of legal advice — Article 4(3), first subparagraph — Protection of the decision-making process — Refusal to grant full access to a legal opinion of the Council of the European Union’s Legal Service)

21

2023/C 261/30

Joined Cases C-430/22 and C-468/22, VB (information for a person convicted in absentia) and Another: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against VB (C-430/22), VB (C-468/22) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Article 8(4) — Right to be present at the trial — Proceedings conducted in absentia — Reopening of the proceedings — Notice to the person convicted in absentia of his or her right to have the proceedings reopened)

22

2023/C 261/31

Case C-455/21, Lyoness Europe: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Olt — Romania) — OZ v Lyoness Europe AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 2(b) — Definition of consumer — Contract for membership of a loyalty scheme enabling certain financial benefits to be obtained when purchasing goods and services from third-party traders)

22

2023/C 261/32

Case C-468/20, Fastweb and Others (Time frame for billing): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Fastweb SpA, TIM SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Article 56 TFUE — Freedom to provide services — National legislation granting the national regulatory authority the power to impose on telephony service providers a minimum time frame for the renewal of offers and a minimum time frame for billing — Consumer protection — Principle of proportionality — Principle of equal treatment)

23

2023/C 261/33

Case C-540/21: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2023 — European Commission v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Package travel and linked travel arrangements — Directive (EU) 2015/2302 — Article 12(2) to (4) — Termination of a package travel contract — Unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances — COVID-19 pandemic — Refund of payments made by the traveller for the package — Refund in the form of a sum of money or in the form of a replacement package tour — Obligation to provide that traveller with a refund not later than 14 days after the relevant contract is terminated — Temporary derogation from that obligation)

24

2023/C 261/34

Case C-545/21, ANAS: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (ANAS) v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — European Union Structural Funds — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 2(7) — Concept of irregularity — Article 98(1) and (2) — Financial corrections by Member States in connection with irregularities detected — Criteria to be applied — Directive 2004/18/EC — Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) — Concept of grave professional misconduct)

24

2023/C 261/35

Case C-567/21, BNP Paribas: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — BNP Paribas SA v TR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 33 and 36 — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Question raised incidentally before the courts of another Member State — Effects produced by that judgment in the State of origin — Admissibility of an action brought in the Member State addressed after that judgment — National procedural rules imposing the concentration of claims in a single set of proceedings)

25

2023/C 261/36

Case C-570/21, YYY (concept of consumer): Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — I.S., K.S. v YYY. S.A. (Request for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Dual-purpose contract — Article 2(b) — Concept of consumer — Criteria)

26

2023/C 261/37

Case C-636/21, Regione Lombardia (Market support measures related to animal diseases): Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — NN v Regione Lombardia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Article 220 — Market support measures related to animal diseases — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323 — Exceptional market support measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy — National legislation — Condition for the granting of aid — Farmers operational on the market in question on the date of submission of the application — Discretion of the Member States)

27

2023/C 261/38

Case C-640/21, Zes Zollner Electronic: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — SC Zes Zollner Electronic SRL v Direcţia Regională Vamală Cluj — Biroul Vamal de Frontieră Aeroport Cluj Napoca (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Union Customs Code — Excess quantity of goods discovered after the release of the goods — Article 173 — Amendment of a customs declaration — Goods other than those originally covered by the declaration to amend — Article 174 — Invalidation of a customs declaration — Article 42 — Penalties imposed by the customs authorities responsible — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446)

27

2023/C 261/39

Case C-654/21, LM (Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity): Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — LM v KP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Dispute before the national court — Jurisdiction of EU trade mark courts — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 124 — Action for infringement — Article 128 — Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity — Subject matter of that counterclaim — Article 129(3) — Rules of procedure governing the same type of action relating to a national trade mark — Principle of procedural autonomy)

28

2023/C 261/40

Joined Cases C-747/21 P and C-748/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 June 2023 — PAO Severstal (C-747/21 P), Novolipetsk Steel PJSC (NLMK) (C-748/21 P) v European Commission, Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1328 — Imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 18(1) — Necessary information — Absence — Article 9(4) — Lesser duty rule — Target price — Profit margin of the Union industry — Establishment — Selection of the most recent representative year — Article 2(9) — Construction of the export price — Injury to the Union industry — Application by analogy — Calculation of the underselling margin — Statement of reasons)

29

General Court

2023/C 261/41

Case T-309/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — TC v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Rules governing expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Reasonable time — Burden of proof — Right to be heard — Protection of personal data — Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations)

30

2023/C 261/42

Case T-33/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Vallegre v EUIPO — Joseph Phelps Vineyards (PORTO INSÍGNIA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark PORTO INSÍGNIA — Earlier EU word mark INSIGNIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

30

2023/C 261/43

Case T-47/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — DDR Kultur v EUIPO — Groupe Canal+ (THE PLANET) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark THE PLANET — Earlier EU figurative mark PLANÈTE + — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

31

2023/C 261/44

Case T-63/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Brooks England v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (BROOKS ENGLAND) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BROOKS ENGLAND — Earlier EU word mark BROOKS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

32

2023/C 261/45

Joined Cases T-218/22 and 219/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Roxtec and Wallmax v EUIPO — Wallmax and Roxtec (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative trade mark representing a blue square containing eight concentric black circles — absolute ground of invalidity — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

32

2023/C 261/46

Case T-339/22: Judgement of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Chocolates Lacasa Internacional v EUIPO — Esquitino Madrid (Conguitos) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Conguitos — Earlier EU word mark Conguitos — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Relative ground for invalidity — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001))

33

2023/C 261/47

Case T-368/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cassa Centrale v EUIPO — Bankia (BANQUÌ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark BANQUÌ — Earlier EU figurative mark Bankia — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Distinctive character of the earlier mark)

34

2023/C 261/48

Case T-519/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS) (EU trade mark — Procedure for the revocation of decisions or the cancellation of entries — Revocation of a decision containing an obvious error attributable to EUIPO — Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No obvious error)

35

2023/C 261/49

Case T-541/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Sanity Group v EUIPO — AC Marca Brands (Sanity Group) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Sanity Group — Earlier EU figurative mark SANYTOL — Relative ground for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

35

2023/C 261/50

Case T-543/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — BRM Extremities (BIOPLAN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark BIOPLAN — Earlier national word mark BIOPLAK — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

36

2023/C 261/51

Case T-221/23: Action brought on 26 April 2023 — WS v EUIPO

36

2023/C 261/52

Case T-232/23: Action brought on 3 May 2023 — LW v Commission

37

2023/C 261/53

Case T-261/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Acampora and Others v Commission

38

2023/C 261/54

Case T-299/23: Action brought on 30 May 2023 — Hexal v Commission

39

2023/C 261/55

Case T-306/23: Action brought on 30 May 2023 — Red Bull and Others v Commission

40

2023/C 261/56

Case T-309/23: Action brought on 5 June 2023 — Aliud Pharma v Commission

41

2023/C 261/57

Case T-312/23: Action brought on 7 June 2023 — Naturgy Energy Group v EUIPO — Global Power Service (gps global power service)

42

2023/C 261/58

Case T-313/23: Action brought on 8 June 2023 — Adeva v EUIPO — Sideme (MAISON CAVIST.)

43

2023/C 261/59

Case T-314/23: Action brought on 8 June 2023 — Tiendanimal v EUIPO (CRIADORES)

43

2023/C 261/60

Case T-316/23: Action brought on 9 June 2023 — Pfriem v EUIPO — U-Control (UC)

44

2023/C 261/61

Case T-318/23: Action brought on 12 June 2023 — J&B v EUIPO — Ergün (J&B BRO)

45

2023/C 261/62

Case T-320/23: Action brought on 12 June 2023 — The Not Company v EUIPO (NOT MILK)

45

2023/C 261/63

Case T-322/23: Action brought on 12 June 2023 — VN v Commission

46

2023/C 261/64

Case T-324/23: Action brought on 13 June 2023 — J. García Carrión v EUIPO — Calipso (LimoLife)

47

2023/C 261/65

Case T-569/22: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2023 — QZ v EIB

48

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2023/C 261/66 | Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-302/22 ( OJ C 276, 18.7.2022 ) | 49 |

Corrigenda

2023/C 261/66

Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-302/22 ( OJ C 276, 18.7.2022 )

( OJ C 276, 18.7.2022 )

49

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/1

---

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

(2023/C 261/01)

Last publication

OJ C 252, 17.7.2023

Past publications

OJ C 235, 3.7.2023

OJ C 223, 26.6.2023

OJ C 216, 19.6.2023

OJ C 205, 12.6.2023

OJ C 189, 30.5.2023

OJ C 173, 15.5.2023

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/2

---

Appeal brought on 31 August 2021 by the Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2021 in Case T-42/21 Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v European Parliament

(Case C-546/21 P)

(2023/C 261/02)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris (represented by: K. Koźmiński, legal advisor, T. Siemiński, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 15 February 2023, the Court (Second Chamber) set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 25 June 2021, Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v Parliament (T-42/21, not published, EU:T:2021:385), and referred the case back to the General Court of the European Union.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/2

---

Appeal brought on 8 December 2022 by WV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2022 in Case T-618/21, WV v CdT

(Case C-750/22 P)

(2023/C 261/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WV (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

By order of 13 June 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 1 March 2023 — N. A. K., E. A. K., Y. A. K v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-123/23, Khan Yunis (1))

(2023/C 261/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Minden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: N. A. K., E. A. K., Y. A. K.

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Question referred

Must Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU, (2) read in conjunction with Article 2(q) of that directive, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which an application for international protection lodged in that Member State is to be rejected as inadmissible if an application for international protection previously lodged in another Member State has been finally rejected by that other Member State as unfounded?

---

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

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

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/3

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against AR

(Case C-179/22, (1) AR)

(2023/C 261/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/3

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Conseil national des barreaux, Conférence des bâtonniers, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Paris v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance, in the presence of: Ordre des avocats du barreau des Hauts-de-Seine

(Case C-398/21, (1) Conseil national des barreaux and Others)

(2023/C 261/06)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/3

---

Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Z.K., M.S. v The Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-248/22, (1) The Minister for Justice and Equality)

(2023/C 261/07)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/4

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — DIGI Távközlési és Szolgáltató Kft. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság

(Case C-460/22, (1) DIGI)

(2023/C 261/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 14.11.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/4

---

Order of the President of the Court of 15 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri, interested parties: Sisal Entertainment SpA, Magic Games Sas di A. Malfatti, Magic Games Srl, Codacons

(Case C-463/21, (1) Global Starnet)

(2023/C 261/09)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2023 — M.E.O. v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-202/23, Baabda and Others (1))

(2023/C 261/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Minden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.E.O.

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU (2) in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State under which an application for international protection made in that Member State is to be rejected as inadmissible if the applicant previously made an application for international protection in another Member State and the procedure was discontinued by the other Member State because the applicant abandoned the application in that Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU (2) in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State under which an application for international protection made in that Member State is to be rejected as inadmissible if the applicant previously made an application for international protection in another Member State and the procedure was discontinued by the other Member State because the applicant abandoned the application in that Member State?

| 2. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:
  Is Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32 in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State under which an application for international protection made in that Member State is to be rejected as inadmissible if the applicant previously made an application for international protection in another Member State and the procedure was discontinued by the other Member State because the applicant abandoned the application in the other Member State, even though the asylum procedure in the other Member State can still be reopened by the other Member State if the applicant makes an application to that effect in the other Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:

Is Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32 in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State under which an application for international protection made in that Member State is to be rejected as inadmissible if the applicant previously made an application for international protection in another Member State and the procedure was discontinued by the other Member State because the applicant abandoned the application in the other Member State, even though the asylum procedure in the other Member State can still be reopened by the other Member State if the applicant makes an application to that effect in the other Member State?

| 3. | If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:
  Does EU law stipulate what is the relevant date, in connection with the decision on an application for international protection, for determining whether an asylum procedure previously discontinued in another Member State can still be reopened or is this a matter governed solely by national law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:

Does EU law stipulate what is the relevant date, in connection with the decision on an application for international protection, for determining whether an asylum procedure previously discontinued in another Member State can still be reopened or is this a matter governed solely by national law?

| 4. | If Question 3 is to be answered to the effect that EU law does contain such stipulations:
  What is the relevant date under EU law, in connection with the decision on an application for international protection, for determining whether an asylum procedure previously discontinued in another Member State can still be reopened? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Question 3 is to be answered to the effect that EU law does contain such stipulations:

What is the relevant date under EU law, in connection with the decision on an application for international protection, for determining whether an asylum procedure previously discontinued in another Member State can still be reopened?

---

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

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

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 April 2023 — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

(Case C-217/23, Laghman (1))

(2023/C 261/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Interested party: A N

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the wording contained in Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast), ‘that group has a distinct identity in the relevant country, because it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society’, to be interpreted as meaning that a group only has a distinct identity in the relevant country if it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society, or is it necessary to assess separately whether a ‘distinct identity’ exists, irrespective of whether the group is regarded as being different by the surrounding society?
  If, on the basis of the answer to question 1, the existence of a ‘distinct identity’ is to be assessed separately: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the wording contained in Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast), ‘that group has a distinct identity in the relevant country, because it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society’, to be interpreted as meaning that a group only has a distinct identity in the relevant country if it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society, or is it necessary to assess separately whether a ‘distinct identity’ exists, irrespective of whether the group is regarded as being different by the surrounding society?

If, on the basis of the answer to question 1, the existence of a ‘distinct identity’ is to be assessed separately:

| 2. | What criteria are to be used to assess whether there is a ‘distinct identity’ within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU?
  Irrespective of the answers to questions 1 and 2: |
| --- | --- |

2.

What criteria are to be used to assess whether there is a ‘distinct identity’ within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU?

Irrespective of the answers to questions 1 and 2:

| 3. | In determining whether a group is perceived as being different ‘by the surrounding society’ within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU, must reference be made to the perspective of the actor of persecution or to that of society as a whole or of a substantial part of the society of a country or of part of the country? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In determining whether a group is perceived as being different ‘by the surrounding society’ within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU, must reference be made to the perspective of the actor of persecution or to that of society as a whole or of a substantial part of the society of a country or of part of the country?

| 4. | What criteria are to be used to determine whether a group is perceived as being ‘different’ within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What criteria are to be used to determine whether a group is perceived as being ‘different’ within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU?

---

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

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

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 5 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against Ş.C.F. and H.F.I.

(Case C-219/23, Dudea) (1)

(2023/C 261/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendants: Ş.C.F. and H.F.I.

Civil party: Ministerul Investițiilor și Proiectelor Europene

Person liable under civil law: H.A. SRL

Interested party: Ministerul public — Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Direcția Națională Anticorupție

Question referred

Must Article 325(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, (2) read in conjunction with Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding a piece of national legislation on the time-barring of criminal liability which results from the application, in accordance with decisions of the Curțea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania), of a national standard of protection of fundamental rights with regard to the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law and which obliges the national courts to refer, in cases pending before them, applying the lex mitior principle, to a rule pertaining to the interruption of the limitation period, as a rule of substantive criminal law, which postdates the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings and which, according to the decisions of the constitutional court, no longer provides for any interruption of the limitation period, whereas the rule in force on the date of the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings, which pre-dates those decisions, governed, in a manner that was clear, precise, foreseeable and accessible, the situations in which the limitation period could be interrupted, in relation to which the special limitation period has not expired, in so far as the application of that piece of national legislation is such as to compromise the primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law and to prevent the imposition of effective and dissuasive penalties for offences of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union? In a similar vein, must those provisions be interpreted as requiring the national courts to disapply, in criminal proceedings concerning such offences, that piece of national legislation if the application thereof would have the effects referred to above and to apply, as regards the interruption of the limitation period, a rule having the clear, precise, foreseeable and accessible content of the rule in force on the date of the facts which prevents those effects from materialising?

---

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

(2)  OJ 1995 C 316, p. 49.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 11 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against L.D.

(Case C-223/23, Redu) (1)

(2023/C 261/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Brașov

Appellant

L.D.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 2 TEU, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 4[(3)] TEU, read in conjunction with recitals 2, 15 and 22 and Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, (2) from the point of view of the Member State’s obligation to take all appropriate and necessary measures to achieve the objective of improving road safety, in the context of the free movement of persons within the European Union, and in application of Commission Decision 2006/928/EC, (3) with reference to the last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding a legal situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the appellant seeks, by means of an extraordinary appeal, to have set aside a final judgment in criminal proceedings for the offence of driving a motor vehicle with a suspended driving licence, which would enable him to exercise his right to drive again, implying freedom of movement throughout the European Union, invoking the application of the principle of the more lenient criminal law, which he alleges was applicable in the course of the substantive proceedings and would have entailed a shorter limitation period which would have expired before the case was finally concluded, but which was only subsequently revealed by a decision of the national Constitutional Court which declared legislation on interrupting the limitation period for criminal liability to be unconstitutional (decision of 2022), on the ground that the legislature had failed to act to bring the legislation in question into line with another decision of the same Constitutional Court delivered four years earlier (decision of 2018) — and in the interim the case-law of the ordinary courts applying the first decision had become settled in the sense that the legislation in question continued to exist, in the form understood following the first decision of the Constitutional Court — with the practical consequence that the limitation period for all the offences in relation to which no final conviction had been handed down prior to the first decision of the Constitutional Court was reduced by half and the criminal proceedings against the [defendant] in question were consequently discontinued? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 2 TEU, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 4[(3)] TEU, read in conjunction with recitals 2, 15 and 22 and Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, (2) from the point of view of the Member State’s obligation to take all appropriate and necessary measures to achieve the objective of improving road safety, in the context of the free movement of persons within the European Union, and in application of Commission Decision 2006/928/EC, (3) with reference to the last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding a legal situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the appellant seeks, by means of an extraordinary appeal, to have set aside a final judgment in criminal proceedings for the offence of driving a motor vehicle with a suspended driving licence, which would enable him to exercise his right to drive again, implying freedom of movement throughout the European Union, invoking the application of the principle of the more lenient criminal law, which he alleges was applicable in the course of the substantive proceedings and would have entailed a shorter limitation period which would have expired before the case was finally concluded, but which was only subsequently revealed by a decision of the national Constitutional Court which declared legislation on interrupting the limitation period for criminal liability to be unconstitutional (decision of 2022), on the ground that the legislature had failed to act to bring the legislation in question into line with another decision of the same Constitutional Court delivered four years earlier (decision of 2018) — and in the interim the case-law of the ordinary courts applying the first decision had become settled in the sense that the legislation in question continued to exist, in the form understood following the first decision of the Constitutional Court — with the practical consequence that the limitation period for all the offences in relation to which no final conviction had been handed down prior to the first decision of the Constitutional Court was reduced by half and the criminal proceedings against the [defendant] in question were consequently discontinued?

| 2. | Must Article 2 TEU, on the values of the rule of law and respect for human rights in a society in which justice prevails, and Article 4[(3)] TEU, on the principle of sincere cooperation between the European Union and the Member States, in application of Commission Decision 2006/928/EC in so far as it concerns the commitment to ensuring the efficiency of the Romanian judicial system, with reference to the last sentence of Article 49[(1)] of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which enshrines the principle of the more lenient criminal law, be interpreted, in relation to the national judicial system as a whole, as precluding a legal situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the appellant seeks, by means of an extraordinary appeal, to have set aside a final judgment in criminal proceedings for the offence of driving a motor vehicle with a suspended driving licence, which would enable him to exercise his right to drive again, implying freedom of movement throughout the European Union, invoking the application of the principle of the more lenient criminal law, which he alleges was applicable in the course of the substantive proceedings and would have entailed a shorter limitation period which would have expired before the case was finally concluded, but which was only subsequently revealed by a decision of the national Constitutional Court which declared legislation on interrupting the limitation period for criminal liability to be unconstitutional (decision of 2022), on the ground that the legislature had failed to act to bring the legislation in question into line with another decision of the same Constitutional Court delivered four years earlier (decision of 2018) — and in the interim the case-law of the ordinary courts applying the first decision had become settled in the sense that the legislation in question continued to exist, in the form understood following the first decision of the Constitutional Court — with the practical consequence that the limitation period for all the offences in relation to which no final conviction had been handed down prior to the first decision of the Constitutional Court was reduced by half and the criminal proceedings against the [defendant] in question were consequently discontinued? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 2 TEU, on the values of the rule of law and respect for human rights in a society in which justice prevails, and Article 4[(3)] TEU, on the principle of sincere cooperation between the European Union and the Member States, in application of Commission Decision 2006/928/EC in so far as it concerns the commitment to ensuring the efficiency of the Romanian judicial system, with reference to the last sentence of Article 49[(1)] of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which enshrines the principle of the more lenient criminal law, be interpreted, in relation to the national judicial system as a whole, as precluding a legal situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the appellant seeks, by means of an extraordinary appeal, to have set aside a final judgment in criminal proceedings for the offence of driving a motor vehicle with a suspended driving licence, which would enable him to exercise his right to drive again, implying freedom of movement throughout the European Union, invoking the application of the principle of the more lenient criminal law, which he alleges was applicable in the course of the substantive proceedings and would have entailed a shorter limitation period which would have expired before the case was finally concluded, but which was only subsequently revealed by a decision of the national Constitutional Court which declared legislation on interrupting the limitation period for criminal liability to be unconstitutional (decision of 2022), on the ground that the legislature had failed to act to bring the legislation in question into line with another decision of the same Constitutional Court delivered four years earlier (decision of 2018) — and in the interim the case-law of the ordinary courts applying the first decision had become settled in the sense that the legislation in question continued to exist, in the form understood following the first decision of the Constitutional Court — with the practical consequence that the limitation period for all the offences in relation to which no final conviction had been handed down prior to the first decision of the Constitutional Court was reduced by half and the criminal proceedings against the [defendant] in question were consequently discontinued?

| 3. | If so, and only if it is impossible to provide an interpretation in conformity with EU law, is the principle of the primacy of EU law to be interpreted as precluding national legislation or a national practice pursuant to which the ordinary national courts are bound by decisions of the national Constitutional Court and binding decisions of the national supreme court and may not, for that reason and at the risk of committing a disciplinary offence, of their own motion disapply the case-law resulting from those decisions, even if, in the light of a judgment of the Court of Justice, they take the view that that case-law is contrary to Article 2 TEU, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 4[(3)] TEU, in conjunction with recitals 2, 15 and 22 and Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, from the point of view of the Member State’s obligation to take all appropriate and necessary measures to achieve the objective of improving road safety, and in application of Commission Decision 2006/928/EC, with reference to the last sentence of Article 49[(1)] of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as in the situation in the main proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If so, and only if it is impossible to provide an interpretation in conformity with EU law, is the principle of the primacy of EU law to be interpreted as precluding national legislation or a national practice pursuant to which the ordinary national courts are bound by decisions of the national Constitutional Court and binding decisions of the national supreme court and may not, for that reason and at the risk of committing a disciplinary offence, of their own motion disapply the case-law resulting from those decisions, even if, in the light of a judgment of the Court of Justice, they take the view that that case-law is contrary to Article 2 TEU, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 4[(3)] TEU, in conjunction with recitals 2, 15 and 22 and Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, from the point of view of the Member State’s obligation to take all appropriate and necessary measures to achieve the objective of improving road safety, and in application of Commission Decision 2006/928/EC, with reference to the last sentence of Article 49[(1)] of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as in the situation in the main proceedings?

---

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

(2)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.

(3)  Commission Decision of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (OJ 2006 L 354, p. 56).

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against SS, IP, ZI, DD, HYA

(Case C-229/23, HYA and Others)

(2023/C 261/14)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

SS, IP, ZI, DD and HYA

Questions referred

Must Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, (1) read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)], as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the judgment of 16 February 2023 in Case C-349/21 (2) and in the light of recital 11 of that directive, of Article 52(1) and Article 53 of the Charter and of the principle of equivalence, be interpreted as requiring a national court:

| — | to disapply provisions of national law (Article 121(4) of the [Konstitutsia na Republika Bulgaria (Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria)], Article 174(4) of the [Nakazatelnoprotsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure; ‘the NPK’)] and Article 15(2) of the [Zakon za spetsialnite razuznavatelni sredstva (Law on Special Investigative Methods; ‘the ZSRS’)]) and the interpretation of Article 8(2) of the [European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)] adopted by the [European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)] in the judgment in Case No 70078/12, according to which a judicial authorisation (to listen to, intercept and store telecommunications without the consent of the users concerned) must contain an express statement of written reasons, irrespective of the existence of a reasoned application on the basis of which the authorisation was issued, the reason for such disapplication being that a cross-reading of the application and the authorisation makes apparent (1) the precise grounds on which the court, in the factual and legal circumstances of the particular case, arrived at the view that the legal requirements had been met, and (2) the person and the means of communication that formed the subject of the judicial authorisation issued? |
| --- | --- |

—

to disapply provisions of national law (Article 121(4) of the [Konstitutsia na Republika Bulgaria (Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria)], Article 174(4) of the [Nakazatelnoprotsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure; ‘the NPK’)] and Article 15(2) of the [Zakon za spetsialnite razuznavatelni sredstva (Law on Special Investigative Methods; ‘the ZSRS’)]) and the interpretation of Article 8(2) of the [European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)] adopted by the [European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)] in the judgment in Case No 70078/12, according to which a judicial authorisation (to listen to, intercept and store telecommunications without the consent of the users concerned) must contain an express statement of written reasons, irrespective of the existence of a reasoned application on the basis of which the authorisation was issued, the reason for such disapplication being that a cross-reading of the application and the authorisation makes apparent (1) the precise grounds on which the court, in the factual and legal circumstances of the particular case, arrived at the view that the legal requirements had been met, and (2) the person and the means of communication that formed the subject of the judicial authorisation issued?

| — | in the context of the examination as to whether the telecommunications at issue must be excluded as evidence, to disapply a provision of national law (Article 105(2) of the NPK), or to interpret it in conformity with EU law, in so far as it requires compliance with the national procedural rules (in this case, Article 174(4) of the NPK and Article 15(2) of the ZSRS), and to apply instead the rule laid down by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 16 February 2023 in Case C-349/21? |
| --- | --- |

—

in the context of the examination as to whether the telecommunications at issue must be excluded as evidence, to disapply a provision of national law (Article 105(2) of the NPK), or to interpret it in conformity with EU law, in so far as it requires compliance with the national procedural rules (in this case, Article 174(4) of the NPK and Article 15(2) of the ZSRS), and to apply instead the rule laid down by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 16 February 2023 in Case C-349/21?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).

(2)  ECLI:EU:C:2023:102.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 18 April 2023 — Belgian State / Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v L BV

(Case C-243/23, Drebers (1))

(2023/C 261/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Belgian State / Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën

Defendant: L BV

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Articles 187 and 189 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax preclude legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings (namely Article 48(2) and Article 49 WBTW, read in conjunction with Article 9 KB No 3 of 10 December 1969, relating to the deduction facility for the application of value added tax), according to which the extended adjustment period (of 15 years) in the case of the renovation of an existing building is applied only if, after completion of the works, on the basis of the criteria under national law, there is a ‘new building’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the aforementioned Directive, whereas the useful economic life of a substantially renovated building (which, however, on the basis of the administrative criteria under national law does not qualify as a ‘new building’ within the meaning of the aforementioned Article 12) is identical to the useful economic life of a new building, which is considerably longer than the period of five years referred to in the aforementioned Article 187, which is shown, inter alia, by the fact that the works carried out are depreciated over a period of 33 years, which is also the period over which new buildings are depreciated? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Articles 187 and 189 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax preclude legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings (namely Article 48(2) and Article 49 WBTW, read in conjunction with Article 9 KB No 3 of 10 December 1969, relating to the deduction facility for the application of value added tax), according to which the extended adjustment period (of 15 years) in the case of the renovation of an existing building is applied only if, after completion of the works, on the basis of the criteria under national law, there is a ‘new building’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the aforementioned Directive, whereas the useful economic life of a substantially renovated building (which, however, on the basis of the administrative criteria under national law does not qualify as a ‘new building’ within the meaning of the aforementioned Article 12) is identical to the useful economic life of a new building, which is considerably longer than the period of five years referred to in the aforementioned Article 187, which is shown, inter alia, by the fact that the works carried out are depreciated over a period of 33 years, which is also the period over which new buildings are depreciated?

| 2. | Does Article 187 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax have direct effect, so that a taxable person who has carried out works on a building without those works leading to the renovated building being classified as a ‘new building’ within the meaning of Article 12 of that directive on the basis of criteria under national law, but where those works have a useful economic life which is identical to that of such new buildings to which a 15-year adjustment period does apply, may rely on the application of the 15-year adjustment period? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 187 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax have direct effect, so that a taxable person who has carried out works on a building without those works leading to the renovated building being classified as a ‘new building’ within the meaning of Article 12 of that directive on the basis of criteria under national law, but where those works have a useful economic life which is identical to that of such new buildings to which a 15-year adjustment period does apply, may rely on the application of the 15-year adjustment period?

---

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

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

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Dortmund (Germany) lodged on 20 April 2023 — ASG 2 Ausgleichsgesellschaft für die Sägeindustrie Nordrhein-Westfalen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-253/23, ASG)

(2023/C 261/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Dortmund

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ASG 2 Ausgleichsgesellschaft für die Sägeindustrie Nordrhein-Westfalen GmbH

Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Questions referred

| 1. | Is EU law, particularly Article 101 TFEU, Article 4(3) TEU, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Articles 2(4) and 3(1) of Directive 2014/104/EU (1) to be interpreted as precluding an interpretation and application of the law of a Member State which has the effect of prohibiting a person who may have suffered harm by an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — established, with binding effect, on the basis of Article 9 of Directive 2014/104/EU or the national provisions transposing that article — from assigning on a fiduciary basis his or her claims for compensation — particularly in cases of collective or scattered harm — to a licensed provider of legal services, so that that provider can claim together with the claims of other alleged injured parties, by means of a follow-on action if other equivalent legal or contractual possibilities for consolidating claims for damages do not exist, in particular because they do not allow a judgment requiring performance [of payment of damages] to be sought, of if they are not practicable for other procedural reasons or are objectively unreasonable for economic reasons, with the consequence, in particular, that it would be practically impossible, or in any event excessively difficult, to bring an action for damages for a small amount? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is EU law, particularly Article 101 TFEU, Article 4(3) TEU, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Articles 2(4) and 3(1) of Directive 2014/104/EU (1) to be interpreted as precluding an interpretation and application of the law of a Member State which has the effect of prohibiting a person who may have suffered harm by an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — established, with binding effect, on the basis of Article 9 of Directive 2014/104/EU or the national provisions transposing that article — from assigning on a fiduciary basis his or her claims for compensation — particularly in cases of collective or scattered harm — to a licensed provider of legal services, so that that provider can claim together with the claims of other alleged injured parties, by means of a follow-on action if other equivalent legal or contractual possibilities for consolidating claims for damages do not exist, in particular because they do not allow a judgment requiring performance [of payment of damages] to be sought, of if they are not practicable for other procedural reasons or are objectively unreasonable for economic reasons, with the consequence, in particular, that it would be practically impossible, or in any event excessively difficult, to bring an action for damages for a small amount?

| 2. | Is EU law in any event be interpreted in this way if the claims for damages at issue have to be pursued without a prior decision on the alleged infringement from the European Commission or national authorities that has a binding effect within the meaning of national provisions based on Article 9 of Directive 2014/104/EU (known as a ‘stand-alone action’), if other equivalent legal or contractual possibilities for consolidating civil law claims for damages do not exist for the reasons already set out in question 1, and, in particular, on the contrary, an action based on an infringement of Article 101 TFEU would not be brought, either via public enforcement nor via private enforcement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is EU law in any event be interpreted in this way if the claims for damages at issue have to be pursued without a prior decision on the alleged infringement from the European Commission or national authorities that has a binding effect within the meaning of national provisions based on Article 9 of Directive 2014/104/EU (known as a ‘stand-alone action’), if other equivalent legal or contractual possibilities for consolidating civil law claims for damages do not exist for the reasons already set out in question 1, and, in particular, on the contrary, an action based on an infringement of Article 101 TFEU would not be brought, either via public enforcement nor via private enforcement?

| 3. | If at least one of those two questions is answered in the affirmative, must the relevant provisions of German law remain unapplied if an interpretation which complies with EU law is ruled out, which would have the consequence that assignments [of claims for compensation] are in any event effective from that point of view and would render effective enforcement of law possible? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If at least one of those two questions is answered in the affirmative, must the relevant provisions of German law remain unapplied if an interpretation which complies with EU law is ruled out, which would have the consequence that assignments [of claims for compensation] are in any event effective from that point of view and would render effective enforcement of law possible?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 1).

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 28 April 2023 — E.P. v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

(Case C-277/23, Ministarstvo financija)

(2023/C 261/17)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.P.

Other party to the proceedings: Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Articles 18, 20, 21 and the second indent of Article 165(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 202, p. 1) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a parent loses the right to increase the annual basic income tax allowance for a dependent child who, as a dependent student having exercised his or her right freely to move and reside in another Member State for the purpose of study, has availed himself or herself, on the basis of national implementing acts, of the measures provided for in Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus +’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 50) for the purpose of facilitating the mobility of students from a Member State with lower or middle average living costs to a Member State with higher average living costs, as determined according to the criteria of the European Commission set out in Article 18(7) of that regulation, when that child receives student mobility support which exceeds a certain fixed limit? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Articles 18, 20, 21 and the second indent of Article 165(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 202, p. 1) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a parent loses the right to increase the annual basic income tax allowance for a dependent child who, as a dependent student having exercised his or her right freely to move and reside in another Member State for the purpose of study, has availed himself or herself, on the basis of national implementing acts, of the measures provided for in Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus +’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 50) for the purpose of facilitating the mobility of students from a Member State with lower or middle average living costs to a Member State with higher average living costs, as determined according to the criteria of the European Commission set out in Article 18(7) of that regulation, when that child receives student mobility support which exceeds a certain fixed limit?

| 2. | Should Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2002 L 166, p. 1) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a parent loses the right to increase the annual basic income tax allowance for a dependent student who, while studying in another Member State, availed himself or herself of the student mobility support provided for in Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus+’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 50)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2002 L 166, p. 1) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a parent loses the right to increase the annual basic income tax allowance for a dependent student who, while studying in another Member State, availed himself or herself of the student mobility support provided for in Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus+’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 50)?

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 April 2023 — M.M., as heir of M.R. v Ministero della Difesa

(Case C-278/23, Biltena (1))

(2023/C 261/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: M.M., as heir of M.R.

Respondent: Ministero della Difesa

Questions referred

| 1. | Must clause 5, ‘Measures to prevent abuse’, of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (2) of 28 June 1999 be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as the Italian legislation contained in Article 2(1) of legge n. 1023 del 1969 (Law No 1023 of 1969) and Article 1 of the Decreto Ministeriale 20 dicembre 1971 (Ministerial Decree of 20 December 1971), providing for annual appointments of civilian staff outside the State administration (pursuant to Article 7 of the Ministerial Decree of 20 December 1971‘for a maximum period of one school year’) for the teaching of non-military subjects in the schools, establishments and bodies of the Italian navy and air force, without the need to state any objective reasons justifying the renewal of the appointments (expressly provided for in Article 4 of that ministerial decree, which provides for a reduction in remuneration for the second appointment), the maximum total duration of fixed-term contracts or the maximum number of renewals, and without providing for the possibility for those teachers to obtain compensation for any damage suffered as a result of such renewal, in the absence, moreover, of any schoolteacher role in such schools to which they might have access? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must clause 5, ‘Measures to prevent abuse’, of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (2) of 28 June 1999 be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as the Italian legislation contained in Article 2(1) of legge n. 1023 del 1969 (Law No 1023 of 1969) and Article 1 of the Decreto Ministeriale 20 dicembre 1971 (Ministerial Decree of 20 December 1971), providing for annual appointments of civilian staff outside the State administration (pursuant to Article 7 of the Ministerial Decree of 20 December 1971‘for a maximum period of one school year’) for the teaching of non-military subjects in the schools, establishments and bodies of the Italian navy and air force, without the need to state any objective reasons justifying the renewal of the appointments (expressly provided for in Article 4 of that ministerial decree, which provides for a reduction in remuneration for the second appointment), the maximum total duration of fixed-term contracts or the maximum number of renewals, and without providing for the possibility for those teachers to obtain compensation for any damage suffered as a result of such renewal, in the absence, moreover, of any schoolteacher role in such schools to which they might have access?

| 2. | Do the organisational requirements of the Italian navy and air force’s system of establishments, schools and bodies constitute objective reasons, pursuant to clause 5(1) [of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to] Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, and therefore render legislation such as the abovementioned Italian legislation — which, with regard to the appointment of staff external to such military establishments, schools and bodies to carry out teaching, does not lay down conditions for having recourse to fixed-term work in accordance with Directive 1999/70/EC and the annexed framework agreement, and does not provide for a right to compensation for damage — compatible with EU law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the organisational requirements of the Italian navy and air force’s system of establishments, schools and bodies constitute objective reasons, pursuant to clause 5(1) [of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to] Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, and therefore render legislation such as the abovementioned Italian legislation — which, with regard to the appointment of staff external to such military establishments, schools and bodies to carry out teaching, does not lay down conditions for having recourse to fixed-term work in accordance with Directive 1999/70/EC and the annexed framework agreement, and does not provide for a right to compensation for damage — compatible with EU law?

---

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

(2)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/12

---

Appeal brought on 30 April 2023 by Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A., RTE Réseau de transport d'électricité, Svenska kraftnät, TenneT TSO BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 February 2023 in Case T-606/20, Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER

(Case C-281/23 P)

(2023/C 261/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A., RTE Réseau de transport d'électricité, Svenska kraftnät, TenneT TSO BV (represented by: M. Levitt, avocat, B. Byrne, and D. Jubrail, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside either in whole or in part the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside either in whole or in part the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul either in whole or in part the decision of the Board of Appeal (‘BoA’) of ACER of 16 July 2020 in case number A-001-2020 (consolidated) (the ‘BoA Decision’); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul either in whole or in part the decision of the Board of Appeal (‘BoA’) of ACER of 16 July 2020 in case number A-001-2020 (consolidated) (the ‘BoA Decision’); and

| — | order ACER to pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal and of the procedure before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order ACER to pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal and of the procedure before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants advance two grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the BoA had not infringed its obligation to carry out a full review of the underlying Decision 02/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation. At the time of the adoption of the BoA Decision, the BoA understood its legal obligations as not mandating a full review of complex technical assessments. That understanding, which is contrary to the case law of the Court of Justice, was reflected in the explicit wording of the BoA Decision. It was not open to the General Court to reinterpret the explicit wording in the BoA Decision to conclude — in direct contradiction with that wording — that the BoA had carried out a full review.

Second, the General Court misapplied Articles 21 and 37 of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 (1) of 23 November 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity balancing in its assessment of the legal basis for ‘required’ platform functions under Article 21. The appellants submit that the General Court committed two specific legal errors. First, contrary to the terminology and structure of the Commission Regulation 2017/2195, the General Court wrongly found that capacity management through the calculation of cross-zonal capacity is a required platform function covered by Article 21, because Article 37 requires transmission system operators (‘TSOs’) to conduct a process of continuously updating cross-zonal capacity. Second, the General Court failed to respect the distinction between legal obligations on the TSOs in performing a ‘required’ platform function under Article 21, and their rights (contained in the same provision) to propose additional platform functions.

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 312, p. 6.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/13

---

Appeal brought on 30 April 2023 by Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A., RTE Réseau de transport d'électricité, Svenska kraftnät, TenneT TSO BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 February 2023 in Case T-607/20, Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER

(Case C-282/23 P)

(2023/C 261/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A., RTE Réseau de transport d'électricité, Svenska kraftnät, TenneT TSO BV (represented by: M. Levitt, avocat, B. Byrne, and D. Jubrail, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside either in whole or in part the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside either in whole or in part the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul either in whole or in part the decision of the Board of Appeal (‘BoA’) of ACER of 16 July 2020 in case number A-002-2020 (consolidated) (the ‘BoA Decision’); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul either in whole or in part the decision of the Board of Appeal (‘BoA’) of ACER of 16 July 2020 in case number A-002-2020 (consolidated) (the ‘BoA Decision’); and

| — | order ACER to pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal and of the procedure before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order ACER to pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal and of the procedure before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants advance two grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the BoA had not infringed its obligation to carry out a full review of the underlying Decision 03/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with manual activation. At the time of the adoption of the BoA Decision, the BoA understood its legal obligations as not mandating a full review of complex technical assessments. That understanding, which is contrary to the case law of the Court of Justice, was reflected in the explicit wording of the BoA Decision. It was not open to the General Court to reinterpret the explicit wording in the BoA Decision to conclude — in direct contradiction with that wording — that the BoA had carried out a full review.

Second, the General Court misapplied Articles 20 and 37 of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 (1) of 23 November 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity balancing in its assessment of the legal basis for ‘required’ platform functions under Article 20. The appellants submit that the General Court committed two specific legal errors. First, contrary to the terminology and structure of the Commission Regulation 2017/2195, the GC wrongly found that capacity management through the calculation of cross-zonal capacity is a required platform function covered by Article 20, because Article 37 requires transmission system operators (‘TSOs’) to conduct a process of continuously updating cross-zonal capacity. Second, the General Court failed to respect the distinction between legal obligations on the TSOs in performing a ‘required’ platform function under Article 20, and their rights (contained in the same provision) to propose additional platform functions.

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 312, p. 6.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 3 May 2023 — HE v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-288/23, El Baheer (1))

(2023/C 261/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HE

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

| 1. | Where a Member State is not permitted to exercise the option provided by Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU (2) to reject as inadmissible an application for international protection based on the granting of refugee status in another Member State, because the conditions of life in that Member State would expose the applicant to a serious risk of subjection to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are the second sentence of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, (3) the second sentence of Article 4(1) and Article 13 of Directive 2011/95/EU (4) and Article 10(2) and (3) and Article 33(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, to be interpreted as meaning that the granting of refugee status which has previously taken place prevents a Member State from undertaking an open-ended examination of the application for international protection made to it, obliging it to grant refugee status to the applicant without examining the substantive conditions for such protection? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Where a Member State is not permitted to exercise the option provided by Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU (2) to reject as inadmissible an application for international protection based on the granting of refugee status in another Member State, because the conditions of life in that Member State would expose the applicant to a serious risk of subjection to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are the second sentence of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, (3) the second sentence of Article 4(1) and Article 13 of Directive 2011/95/EU (4) and Article 10(2) and (3) and Article 33(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, to be interpreted as meaning that the granting of refugee status which has previously taken place prevents a Member State from undertaking an open-ended examination of the application for international protection made to it, obliging it to grant refugee status to the applicant without examining the substantive conditions for such protection?

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is that the Member State is not bound by the granting of refugee status in another Member State and is obliged to undertake an open-ended examination of the application for international protection made to it:
  Do conditions in the recognising Member State which expose the applicant to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude a requirement under the first sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC (5) for the applicant to go immediately to the territory of that Member State and so enable the examining Member State to issue a decision on the applicant’s return to his or her country of origin under the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) thereof, without previously imposing the requirement specified in the first sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC?
  In that context, must the conditions in the recognising Member State be considered in isolation, in other words must the same criterion be applied that Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU applies to a decision, or may the possibility be envisaged that, as a result of the Member State’s open-ended examination, the applicant does not obtain protection status in that Member State and therefore has the choice to return to the other Member State which granted him or her refugee status or to his or her country of origin? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is that the Member State is not bound by the granting of refugee status in another Member State and is obliged to undertake an open-ended examination of the application for international protection made to it:

Do conditions in the recognising Member State which expose the applicant to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude a requirement under the first sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC (5) for the applicant to go immediately to the territory of that Member State and so enable the examining Member State to issue a decision on the applicant’s return to his or her country of origin under the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) thereof, without previously imposing the requirement specified in the first sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC?

In that context, must the conditions in the recognising Member State be considered in isolation, in other words must the same criterion be applied that Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU applies to a decision, or may the possibility be envisaged that, as a result of the Member State’s open-ended examination, the applicant does not obtain protection status in that Member State and therefore has the choice to return to the other Member State which granted him or her refugee status or to his or her country of origin?

| 3. | If the answer to question 2 is that, pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, the applicant must be required to go immediately to the territory of the recognising Member State:
  Is it possible for the decision taken under the first sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC requiring the applicant to go immediately to the territory of the recognising Member State and the decision requiring the applicant’s return to his or her country of origin under the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) thereof, to be issued in a single administrative decision? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 2 is that, pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, the applicant must be required to go immediately to the territory of the recognising Member State:

Is it possible for the decision taken under the first sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC requiring the applicant to go immediately to the territory of the recognising Member State and the decision requiring the applicant’s return to his or her country of origin under the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) thereof, to be issued in a single administrative decision?

| 4. | If the answer to question 2 is that the applicant is not required to go immediately to the territory of the recognising Member State pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC:
  Does the principle of non-refoulement (Articles 18 and 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC and Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU) preclude a decision to return the applicant to his country of origin pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) thereof, if the applicant has been granted refugee status in another Member State but the Member State in which he or she is currently present and has lodged an asylum application concludes, in an open-ended examination, that the applicant cannot be granted any protection status? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to question 2 is that the applicant is not required to go immediately to the territory of the recognising Member State pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC:

Does the principle of non-refoulement (Articles 18 and 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC and Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU) preclude a decision to return the applicant to his country of origin pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) thereof, if the applicant has been granted refugee status in another Member State but the Member State in which he or she is currently present and has lodged an asylum application concludes, in an open-ended examination, that the applicant cannot be granted any protection status?

| 5. | If the answer to question 4 is that the principle of non-refoulement precludes a return decision:
  Must the principle of non-refoulement (Articles 18 and 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC and Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU) be examined when the return decision is being issued pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) thereof, with the consequence that no return decision can be issued, or is it mandatory to issue a return decision pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) thereof, and then postpone the removal pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2008/115/EC? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to question 4 is that the principle of non-refoulement precludes a return decision:

Must the principle of non-refoulement (Articles 18 and 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC and Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU) be examined when the return decision is being issued pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) thereof, with the consequence that no return decision can be issued, or is it mandatory to issue a return decision pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) thereof, and then postpone the removal pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2008/115/EC?

---

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

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

(3)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

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

(5)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 May 2023 — G GmbH v Hauptzollamt H

(Case C-307/23, G GmbH)

(2023/C 261/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: G GmbH

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Hauptzollamt H

Question referred

Must the cost of production, in the customs territory of the European Union, of printing templates for labels be added to the transaction value under Article 32(1)(a)(ii) or Article 32(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Code (1) if the buyer established in the customs territory of the European Union makes the printing templates available free of charge in electronic form to the suppliers in the third country?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/16

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Bistriţa — Romania) — LO v Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bistriţa, RS, TU and VW

(Case C-56/23, (1) Riaman) (2)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to present the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 261/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Bistriţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LO

Interveners: Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bistriţa, RS, TU and VW

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Judecătoria Bistriţa (Court of First Instance, Bistriţa, Romania), by decision of 7 December 2022, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 3.2.2023.

(2)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/16

---

Action brought on 24 May 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-318/23)

(2023/C 261/24)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, M. Escobar Gómez, U. Babovič and A. Kraner, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Republic of Slovenia, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-140/14, Commission v Slovenia, in so far as it concerns Plot No 115/1 in Teharje (Bukovžlak), has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Slovenia, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-140/14, Commission v Slovenia, in so far as it concerns Plot No 115/1 in Teharje (Bukovžlak), has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

| — | order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 4 500 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings until the date on which the Republic of Slovenia complies with the judgment in Case C-140/14 in so far as it concerns Plot No 115/1 in Teharje (Bukovžlak); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 4 500 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings until the date on which the Republic of Slovenia complies with the judgment in Case C-140/14 in so far as it concerns Plot No 115/1 in Teharje (Bukovžlak);

| — | order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the Commission a daily lump sum of EUR 500 multiplied by the number of days from the delivery of the judgment in Case C-140/14 until the date on which the Republic of Slovenia complies with that judgment in so far as it concerns Plot No 115/1 in Teharje (Bukovžlak), or until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, whichever is sooner, the minimum total amount of the lump sum being EUR 280 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the Commission a daily lump sum of EUR 500 multiplied by the number of days from the delivery of the judgment in Case C-140/14 until the date on which the Republic of Slovenia complies with that judgment in so far as it concerns Plot No 115/1 in Teharje (Bukovžlak), or until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, whichever is sooner, the minimum total amount of the lump sum being EUR 280 000;

| — | order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its judgment in Case C-140/14, the Court found that the disposal of waste on Plot [No 115/1] in Teharje (Bukovžlak) had to be considered illegal and that Slovenia had infringed the obligations laid down in Article 13 and Article 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) Article 5(3)(e) and Article 6 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC, (2) read in conjunction with Council Decision 2003/33/EC, (3) and Articles 7 to 9, 11 and 12 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC, as well as Annexes I to III thereto, by having first permitted the unauthorised disposal of waste on that site and having then not taken any measures to remove that waste.

The Republic of Slovenia has informed the European Commission of the individual measures for selecting the best way of disposing of the waste and for carrying out the works whereby the judgment in Case C-140/14 will be complied with in so far as it concerns Plot No 115/1 in Teharje (Bukovžlak). To that end, the Republic of Slovenia sent the European Commission a timetable, according to which the final implementation of the rehabilitation would take place between the first semester of 2020 and 3 November 2021.

Because there were delays in complying with the deadlines specified in the timetable referred to above, the European Commission sent the Republic of Slovenia a letter of formal notice on 8 June 2018. The Republic of Slovenia, in its response to that letter of formal notice, expressly assured the Commission that the rehabilitation works would be carried out by the original deadline specified in the timetable referred to above; however, this did not happen. An illegal landfill, established and maintained in breach of the applicable EU legislation, still exists — despite the judgment of the Court in which that breach was established — and presents a risk for the environment and human health. The European Commission has therefore decided to bring an action under Article 260(2) TFEU.

---

(1)  Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3).

(2)  Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 27).

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Austrian Airlines AG v TW

(Case C-49/22, (1) Austrian Airlines (Repatriation flight))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(1)(a) - Cancellation of a flight - Article 8(1) - Obligation to provide assistance - Concept of ‘re-routing’ - Compensation for air passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight - COVID-19 pandemic - Repatriation flight organised by a Member State in the context of consular assistance - Flight operated by the same operating air carrier and at the same time as the cancelled flight - Costs to be borne by the passenger in excess of the net costs of that flight)

(2023/C 261/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Austrian Airlines AG

Defendant: TW

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91,
  must be interpreted as meaning that a repatriation flight, organised by a Member State in the context of consular assistance, following the cancellation of a flight, does not constitute ‘re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to [the] final destination’, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation, which must be offered by the operating air carrier to the passenger whose flight has been cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91,

must be interpreted as meaning that a repatriation flight, organised by a Member State in the context of consular assistance, following the cancellation of a flight, does not constitute ‘re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to [the] final destination’, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation, which must be offered by the operating air carrier to the passenger whose flight has been cancelled.

| 2. | Article 8(1) of Regulation No 261/2004
  must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who, following the cancellation of his or her return flight, registers himself or herself for a repatriation flight organised by a Member State in the context of consular assistance, and who is required to pay on that basis to that State a compulsory contribution to costs, does not have a right to reimbursement of those costs at the expense of the operating air carrier on the basis of that regulation.
  By contrast, such a passenger may invoke before a national court the failure of the operating air carrier to comply, first, with its obligation to reimburse the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made or no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger’s original travel plan, and, secondly, with its obligation to provide assistance, including its duty to provide information under Article 8(1) of that regulation, in order to obtain compensation from that operating air carrier. Such compensation must nevertheless be limited to what, in the light of the specific circumstances of each case, proves necessary, appropriate and reasonable to remedy the shortcomings of that operating air carrier. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 8(1) of Regulation No 261/2004

must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who, following the cancellation of his or her return flight, registers himself or herself for a repatriation flight organised by a Member State in the context of consular assistance, and who is required to pay on that basis to that State a compulsory contribution to costs, does not have a right to reimbursement of those costs at the expense of the operating air carrier on the basis of that regulation.

By contrast, such a passenger may invoke before a national court the failure of the operating air carrier to comply, first, with its obligation to reimburse the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made or no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger’s original travel plan, and, secondly, with its obligation to provide assistance, including its duty to provide information under Article 8(1) of that regulation, in order to obtain compensation from that operating air carrier. Such compensation must nevertheless be limited to what, in the light of the specific circumstances of each case, proves necessary, appropriate and reasonable to remedy the shortcomings of that operating air carrier.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/18

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de — Spain) — Prestige and Limousine SL v Área Metropolitana de Barcelona, Asociación Nacional del Taxi (Antaxi), Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi, Sindicat del Taxi de Catalunya (STAC), Tapoca VTC1 SL, Agrupació Taxis Companys

(Case C-50/21, (1) Prestige and Limousine)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Article 107(1) TFEU - Private-hire vehicles (PHVs) - Licencing scheme involving the issue, in addition to a licence to provide urban and interurban transport services throughout the national territory, of a second operating licence in order to be able to provide urban transport services in a metropolitan area - Limitation of the number of licences for PHV services to one thirtieth of the licences for taxi services)

(2023/C 261/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prestige and Limousine SL

Defendants: Área Metropolitana de Barcelona, Asociación Nacional del Taxi (Antaxi), Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi, Sindicat del Taxi de Catalunya (STAC), Tapoca VTC1 SL, Agrupació Taxis Companys

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 107(1) TFEU does not preclude legislation applicable in a conurbation which provides, first, that a specific licence is required in order to carry on the activity of hiring out private-hire vehicles in that conurbation, in addition to the national licence required for the provision of urban and interurban private-hire vehicles, and, secondly, that the number of licences for such services is limited to one thirtieth of the taxi service licences issued for that conurbation, provided that those measures are not such as to involve a commitment of State resources within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 107(1) TFEU does not preclude legislation applicable in a conurbation which provides, first, that a specific licence is required in order to carry on the activity of hiring out private-hire vehicles in that conurbation, in addition to the national licence required for the provision of urban and interurban private-hire vehicles, and, secondly, that the number of licences for such services is limited to one thirtieth of the taxi service licences issued for that conurbation, provided that those measures are not such as to involve a commitment of State resources within the meaning of that provision.

| 2. | Article 49 TFEU does not preclude legislation, applicable in a conurbation, providing that a specific licence is required in order to carry on the activity of hiring out private-hire vehicles in that conurbation, in addition to the national licence required for the provision of urban and interurban private-hire vehicles, if that specific licence is based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria which are known in advance, exclude any arbitrariness and do not duplicate controls that have already been carried out as part of the national licencing procedure, but meet the particular needs of that conurbation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 49 TFEU does not preclude legislation, applicable in a conurbation, providing that a specific licence is required in order to carry on the activity of hiring out private-hire vehicles in that conurbation, in addition to the national licence required for the provision of urban and interurban private-hire vehicles, if that specific licence is based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria which are known in advance, exclude any arbitrariness and do not duplicate controls that have already been carried out as part of the national licencing procedure, but meet the particular needs of that conurbation.

| 3. | Article 49 TFEU precludes legislation applicable in a conurbation which provides for a limitation of the number of licences for private-hire vehicles to one thirtieth of the taxi service licences issued for that conurbation, where it is not established either that that measure is suitable for ensuring, in a coherent and systematic manner, the attainment of the objectives of sound management of transport, traffic and public space in that conurbation and of the protection of its environment or that it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain those objectives. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 49 TFEU precludes legislation applicable in a conurbation which provides for a limitation of the number of licences for private-hire vehicles to one thirtieth of the taxi service licences issued for that conurbation, where it is not established either that that measure is suitable for ensuring, in a coherent and systematic manner, the attainment of the objectives of sound management of transport, traffic and public space in that conurbation and of the protection of its environment or that it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain those objectives.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — E. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-322/22, (1) Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of sincere cooperation - Principle of effectiveness - Tax levied by a Member State in breach of EU law - Breach established following a ruling of the Court of Justice - Right to be paid interest on the overpayment - National legislation limiting the right to the payment of interest to the period running until the thirtieth day following the publication of the ruling of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union)

(2023/C 261/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: E.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

interested party: Rzecznik Małych i Średnich Przedsiębiorców

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of effectiveness, in conjunction with the principle of sincere cooperation, must be interpreted as precluding a piece of national legislation which, when a request for a refund of an overpayment of tax is submitted more than 30 days after the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of a ruling of the Court of Justice from which the finding that the tax at issue is contrary to EU law is derived, limits the running of the interest on the overpayment due to the taxable person concerned to the thirtieth day following that publication, or even excludes interest entirely in a situation where that overpayment was incurred by the taxable person after that thirtieth day.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir), Consommation, logement et cadre de vie (CLCV) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance

(Case C-407/21, (1) UFC– Que choisir and CLCV)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Package travel and linked travel arrangements - Directive (EU) 2015/2302 - Article 12(2) to (4) - Termination of a package travel contract - Unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances - COVID-19 pandemic - Refund of payments made by the traveller concerned for a package - Refund in the form of a sum of money or equivalent refund in the form of a credit note (‘voucher’) - Obligation to provide that traveller with a refund not later than 14 days after the relevant contract is terminated - Temporary derogation from that obligation - Adjustment of the temporal effects of a decision which is taken in accordance with national law and which annuls national legislation that is contrary to that obligation)

(2023/C 261/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

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

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

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 12(2) and (3) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 90/314/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that where, following the termination of a package travel contract, the organiser of that package is required, under that provision, to provide the traveller concerned with a full refund of any payments made for the package, such a refund refers solely to the reimbursement of those payments in the form of a sum of money. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 12(2) and (3) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 90/314/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that where, following the termination of a package travel contract, the organiser of that package is required, under that provision, to provide the traveller concerned with a full refund of any payments made for the package, such a refund refers solely to the reimbursement of those payments in the form of a sum of money.

| 2. | Article 12(2) to (4) of Directive 2015/2302, read in conjunction with Article 4 of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which package travel organisers are temporarily released, in the context of the outbreak of a global health crisis preventing the performance of package travel contracts, from their obligation to provide the travellers concerned, not later than 14 days after a contract is terminated, with a full refund of any payments made under the terminated contract, including where such legislation is intended to prevent, due to the large number of anticipated reimbursement claims, the solvency of those travel organisers from being affected to the point of jeopardising their existence and thus to preserve the viability of the sector concerned. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 12(2) to (4) of Directive 2015/2302, read in conjunction with Article 4 of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which package travel organisers are temporarily released, in the context of the outbreak of a global health crisis preventing the performance of package travel contracts, from their obligation to provide the travellers concerned, not later than 14 days after a contract is terminated, with a full refund of any payments made under the terminated contract, including where such legislation is intended to prevent, due to the large number of anticipated reimbursement claims, the solvency of those travel organisers from being affected to the point of jeopardising their existence and thus to preserve the viability of the sector concerned.

| 3. | EU law, in particular the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not allowing a national court, before which an action for the annulment of national legislation that is contrary to Article 12(2) to (4) of Directive 2015/2302 has been brought, to adjust the temporal effects of its decision annulling that national legislation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

EU law, in particular the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not allowing a national court, before which an action for the annulment of national legislation that is contrary to Article 12(2) to (4) of Directive 2015/2302 has been brought, to adjust the temporal effects of its decision annulling that national legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 — Council of the European Union v Laurent Pech, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-408/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), second indent - Protection of legal advice - Article 4(3), first subparagraph - Protection of the decision-making process - Refusal to grant full access to a legal opinion of the Council of the European Union’s Legal Service)

(2023/C 261/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Dumitriu-Segnana, K. Pavlaki and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Laurent Pech (represented initially by G. Andraos, avocat, O. Brouwer, advocaat, M. Hall, advokat, and B.A.R.T. Verheijen, advocaat, and subsequently by G. Andraos, O. Brouwer, T.C. van Helfteren, advocaten, and M. Hall advokat), Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by O. Simonsson, H. Eklinder, J. Lundberg, C. Meyer-Seitz, A.M. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson and H. Shev, and subsequently by O. Simonsson, H. Eklinder, C. Meyer-Seitz, A.M. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson and H. Shev, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented initially by A.-L. Desjonquères, A.-C. Drouant and E. Leclerc, and subsequently by A.-L. Desjonquères and E. Leclerc, acting as Agents). European Commission (represented by C. Ehrbar and P. Stancanelli, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Laurent Pech; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Laurent Pech;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against VB (C-430/22), VB (C-468/22)

(Joined Cases C-430/22 and C-468/22, (1) VB (information for a person convicted in absentia) and Another)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Article 8(4) - Right to be present at the trial - Proceedings conducted in absentia - Reopening of the proceedings - Notice to the person convicted in absentia of his or her right to have the proceedings reopened)

(2023/C 261/30)

Language of the cases: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties in the main proceedings

VB(C-430/22), VB (C-468/22)

Other party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(4) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not requiring a national court, in the event of a conviction in absentia, where the conditions of Article 8(2) of that directive are not met, to make express reference to the right to a new trial in the judgment convicting the person concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 24.10.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Olt — Romania) — OZ v Lyoness Europe AG

(Case C-455/21, (1) Lyoness Europe)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 2(b) - Definition of ‘consumer’ - Contract for membership of a loyalty scheme enabling certain financial benefits to be obtained when purchasing goods and services from third-party traders)

(2023/C 261/31)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Olt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OZ

Defendant: Lyoness Europe AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who becomes a member of a scheme implemented by a commercial company and allowing, inter alia, certain financial benefits in connection with the purchase, by that natural person or by other persons participating in that scheme further to his or her referral, of goods and services from that company’s business partners, where that natural person is acting for purposes which are outside his or her trade, business or profession, falls within the scope of the concept of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/23

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Fastweb SpA, TIM SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

(Case C-468/20, (1) Fastweb and Others (Time frame for billing))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Article 56 TFUE - Freedom to provide services - National legislation granting the national regulatory authority the power to impose on telephony service providers a minimum time frame for the renewal of offers and a minimum time frame for billing - Consumer protection - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment)

(2023/C 261/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Fastweb SpA, TIM SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

intervening parties: Telecom Italia SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA, Associazione Movimento Consumatori, U.Di.Con, Unione per la Difesa dei Consumatori, Wind Tre SpA, Assotelecomunicazioni (Asstel), Eolo SpA, Coordinamento delle associazioni per la tutela dell’ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e consumatori (Codacons), Associazione degli utenti per i diritti telefonici — A.U.S. TEL ONLUS, Altroconsumo, Federconsumatori

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and Article 8(1), first subparagraph, (2)(a), (4)(b) and (d) and (5)(b) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and Articles 20 to 22 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in conjunction with the principles of proportionality and equal treatment,

must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation which confers on the national regulatory authority the power to adopt a decision requiring, on the one hand, mobile telephony service operators to have a time frame for the renewal of commercial offers and billing of not less than four weeks and, on the other hand, operators of fixed telephony and related services to have a time frame for the renewal of such offers and billing of one month or multiples thereof, provided that the two categories of services in question are, in the light of the subject matter and purpose of that national legislation, in different situations.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2023 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-540/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Package travel and linked travel arrangements - Directive (EU) 2015/2302 - Article 12(2) to (4) - Termination of a package travel contract - Unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances - COVID-19 pandemic - Refund of payments made by the traveller for the package - Refund in the form of a sum of money or in the form of a replacement package tour - Obligation to provide that traveller with a refund not later than 14 days after the relevant contract is terminated - Temporary derogation from that obligation)

(2023/C 261/33)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal, I. Rubene and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by V. Pasternak Jørgensen and M. Søndahl Wolff, and subsequently by M. Søndahl Wolff, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by introducing — by the adoption of zákon č. 136/2020 Z. z. (Law No 136/2020), of 20 May 2020 — Paragraph 33a into zákon č. 170/2018 Z. z. o zájazdoch, spojených službách cestovného ruchu, niektorých podmienkach podnikania v cestovnom ruchu a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (Law No 170/2018 on package travel, linked tourist services and certain conditions applicable to tourist activity, amending and supplementing certain laws), of 15 May 2018, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 12(2), (3)(b) and (4) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC, read in conjunction with Article 4 of Directive 2015/2302; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by introducing — by the adoption of zákon č. 136/2020 Z. z. (Law No 136/2020), of 20 May 2020 — Paragraph 33a into zákon č. 170/2018 Z. z. o zájazdoch, spojených službách cestovného ruchu, niektorých podmienkach podnikania v cestovnom ruchu a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (Law No 170/2018 on package travel, linked tourist services and certain conditions applicable to tourist activity, amending and supplementing certain laws), of 15 May 2018, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 12(2), (3)(b) and (4) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC, read in conjunction with Article 4 of Directive 2015/2302;

| 2. | Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (ANAS) v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

(Case C-545/21, (1) ANAS)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - European Union Structural Funds - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Article 2(7) - Concept of ‘irregularity’ - Article 98(1) and (2) - Financial corrections by Member States in connection with irregularities detected - Criteria to be applied - Directive 2004/18/EC - Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) - Concept of ‘grave professional misconduct’)

(2023/C 261/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (ANAS)

Defendant: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999
  must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘irregularity’, within the meaning of that provision, covers behaviour liable to be classified as ‘acts of corruption’ carried out in the context of a procedure for the award of a public contract for the performance of works co-financed by an EU structural fund, and for which an administrative or judicial procedure has been initiated, including where it is not proved that that behaviour had a real impact on the procedure for selecting the tenderer and where no actual adverse effect on the budget of the European Union has been found. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘irregularity’, within the meaning of that provision, covers behaviour liable to be classified as ‘acts of corruption’ carried out in the context of a procedure for the award of a public contract for the performance of works co-financed by an EU structural fund, and for which an administrative or judicial procedure has been initiated, including where it is not proved that that behaviour had a real impact on the procedure for selecting the tenderer and where no actual adverse effect on the budget of the European Union has been found.

| 2. | Article 98(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1083/2006
  must be interpreted as meaning that in the event of an ‘irregularity’, as defined in Article 2(7) of that regulation, the Member States, in order to determine the applicable financial correction, must carry out an assessment on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, taking into account, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the irregularities found and their financial impact on the fund concerned. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 98(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1083/2006

must be interpreted as meaning that in the event of an ‘irregularity’, as defined in Article 2(7) of that regulation, the Member States, in order to determine the applicable financial correction, must carry out an assessment on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, taking into account, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the irregularities found and their financial impact on the fund concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/25

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — BNP Paribas SA v TR

(Case C-567/21, (1) BNP Paribas)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 33 and 36 - Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State - Question raised incidentally before the courts of another Member State - Effects produced by that judgment in the State of origin - Admissibility of an action brought in the Member State addressed after that judgment - National procedural rules imposing the concentration of claims in a single set of proceedings)

(2023/C 261/35)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BNP Paribas SA

Defendant: TR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 33 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with Article 36 thereof,

must be interpreted as precluding the recognition, in the Member State addressed, of a judgment concerning an employment contract, given in the Member State of origin, from resulting in the inadmissibility of claims brought before a court of the Member State addressed on the ground that the legislation of the Member State of origin lays down a procedural rule for the centralisation of all claims relating to that employment contract, without prejudice to the procedural rules of the Member State addressed which are liable to apply once that recognition has occurred.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/26

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — I.S., K.S. v YYY. S.A.

(Case C-570/21, (1) YYY (concept of ‘consumer’))

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Dual-purpose contract - Article 2(b) - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Criteria)

(2023/C 261/36)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: I.S., K.S.

Defendant: YYY. S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
  must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision, covers a person who has concluded a loan contract intended for a purpose in part within and in part outside his or her trade, business or profession, together with a joint-borrower who did not act within his or her trade, business or profession, where the trade, business or professional purpose is so limited as not to be predominant in the overall context of that contract.. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision, covers a person who has concluded a loan contract intended for a purpose in part within and in part outside his or her trade, business or profession, together with a joint-borrower who did not act within his or her trade, business or profession, where the trade, business or professional purpose is so limited as not to be predominant in the overall context of that contract..

| 2. | Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13
  must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine whether a person falls within the concept of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision, and, specifically, whether the trade, business or professional purpose of a loan contract concluded by that person is so limited as not to be predominant in the overall context of that contract, the referring court is required to take into consideration all the relevant circumstances surrounding that contract, both quantitative and qualitative, such as, in particular, the distribution of the borrowed capital between, on the one hand, a trade, business or profession and, on the other hand, a non-professional activity and, where there are several borrowers, the fact that only one of them is pursuing a professional purpose or that the lender made the grant of credit intended for consumer purposes conditional on a partial allocation of the amount borrowed to the repayment of debts connected with a trade, business or profession. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13

must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine whether a person falls within the concept of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision, and, specifically, whether the trade, business or professional purpose of a loan contract concluded by that person is so limited as not to be predominant in the overall context of that contract, the referring court is required to take into consideration all the relevant circumstances surrounding that contract, both quantitative and qualitative, such as, in particular, the distribution of the borrowed capital between, on the one hand, a trade, business or profession and, on the other hand, a non-professional activity and, where there are several borrowers, the fact that only one of them is pursuing a professional purpose or that the lender made the grant of credit intended for consumer purposes conditional on a partial allocation of the amount borrowed to the repayment of debts connected with a trade, business or profession.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/27

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — NN v Regione Lombardia

(Case C-636/21, (1) Regione Lombardia (Market support measures related to animal diseases))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Article 220 - Market support measures related to animal diseases - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323 - Exceptional market support measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy - National legislation - Condition for the granting of aid - Farmers operational on the market in question on the date of submission of the application - Discretion of the Member States)

(2023/C 261/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NN

Defendant: Regione Lombardia

Operative part of the judgment

Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, read in combination with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323 of 2 August 2019 on exceptional market support measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which is interpreted and applied so as to limit access to the support measures provided for by the latter regulation only to farmers who were still operational in the poultrymeat sector on the date of submission of the aid application.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/27

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — SC Zes Zollner Electronic SRL v Direcţia Regională Vamală Cluj — Biroul Vamal de Frontieră Aeroport Cluj Napoca

(Case C-640/21, (1) Zes Zollner Electronic)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Union Customs Code - Excess quantity of goods discovered after the release of the goods - Article 173 - Amendment of a customs declaration - Goods other than those originally covered by the declaration to amend - Article 174 - Invalidation of a customs declaration - Article 42 - Penalties imposed by the customs authorities responsible - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446)

(2023/C 261/38)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Zes Zollner Electronic SRL

Defendant: Direcţia Regională Vamală Cluj — Biroul Vamal de Frontieră Aeroport Cluj Napoca

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 173 and 174 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code
  must be interpreted as meaning that they are not applicable when the declarant reports, after submitting his or her customs declaration and after release of the goods, that a quantity of goods in excess of that which was originally covered by that declaration should also have been covered by the declaration, where:






  — | first, an application for amendment of a customs declaration, on the basis of the first of those provisions, cannot be allowed when it seeks to amend that declaration in order to render it applicable to a quantity of goods in excess of that set out therein and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Articles 173 and 174 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code

must be interpreted as meaning that they are not applicable when the declarant reports, after submitting his or her customs declaration and after release of the goods, that a quantity of goods in excess of that which was originally covered by that declaration should also have been covered by the declaration, where:

—

first, an application for amendment of a customs declaration, on the basis of the first of those provisions, cannot be allowed when it seeks to amend that declaration in order to render it applicable to a quantity of goods in excess of that set out therein and

| — | secondly, an application for invalidation of a customs declaration, on the basis of the second of those provisions, cannot be allowed when that application was made after the goods were released, without, however, falling within the cases determined by the Commission under Article 175 of that code. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, an application for invalidation of a customs declaration, on the basis of the second of those provisions, cannot be allowed when that application was made after the goods were released, without, however, falling within the cases determined by the Commission under Article 175 of that code.

| 2. | Regulation No 952/2013, and in particular Article 42, Article 139(1) and Article 158(1) thereof,
  must be interpreted as meaning that where a declarant reports, after release of the goods, that the quantity of imported goods is greater than that set out in his or her customs declaration, he or she is required to make a new declaration in respect of that excess quantity. If, in the case of such a late declaration, the customs authorities are led to apply national legislation providing for penalties in accordance with Article 42 of that code, they must take into account, in making the legal classification of any infringement committed and in determining, where appropriate, the penalties, relating to non-compliance with the customs legislation, to be imposed, all the relevant information, including, if necessary, the good faith of the declarant, in order to ensure that those penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regulation No 952/2013, and in particular Article 42, Article 139(1) and Article 158(1) thereof,

must be interpreted as meaning that where a declarant reports, after release of the goods, that the quantity of imported goods is greater than that set out in his or her customs declaration, he or she is required to make a new declaration in respect of that excess quantity. If, in the case of such a late declaration, the customs authorities are led to apply national legislation providing for penalties in accordance with Article 42 of that code, they must take into account, in making the legal classification of any infringement committed and in determining, where appropriate, the penalties, relating to non-compliance with the customs legislation, to be imposed, all the relevant information, including, if necessary, the good faith of the declarant, in order to ensure that those penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/28

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — LM v KP

(Case C-654/21, (1) LM (Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Dispute before the national court - Jurisdiction of EU trade mark courts - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 124 - Action for infringement - Article 128 - Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity - Subject matter of that counterclaim - Article 129(3) - Rules of procedure governing the same type of action relating to a national trade mark - Principle of procedural autonomy)

(2023/C 261/39)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant and counter-defendant: LM

Defendant and counter-claimant: KP

Operative part of the judgment

Article 124(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, read in conjunction with Article 128(1) thereof,

must be interpreted as meaning that a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of an EU trade mark may relate to all the rights which the proprietor of that mark derives from its registration and that the subject matter of that counterclaim is not restricted by the scope of the dispute as defined by the action for infringement.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/29

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 June 2023 — PAO Severstal (C-747/21 P), Novolipetsk Steel PJSC (NLMK) (C-748/21 P) v European Commission, Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL

(Joined Cases C-747/21 P and C-748/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1328 - Imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 18(1) - Necessary information - Absence - Article 9(4) - ‘Lesser duty rule’ - Target price - Profit margin of the Union industry - Establishment - Selection of the most recent representative year - Article 2(9) - Construction of the export price - Injury to the Union industry - Application by analogy - Calculation of the underselling margin - Statement of reasons)

(2023/C 261/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: PAO Severstal (C-747/21 P), Novolipetsk Steel PJSC (NLMK), (C-748/21 P) (represented by: M. Krestiyanova and N. Tuominen, avocată)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: K. Blanck and J.-F. Brakeland, and subsequently by J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents), Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders PAO Severstal to pay the costs in Case C-747/21 P; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PAO Severstal to pay the costs in Case C-747/21 P;

| 3. | Orders Novolipetsk Steel PJSC (NLMK) to pay the costs in Case C-748/21 P. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Novolipetsk Steel PJSC (NLMK) to pay the costs in Case C-748/21 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---

General Court

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — TC v Parliament

(Case T-309/21) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules governing expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Reasonable time - Burden of proof - Right to be heard - Protection of personal data - Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations)

(2023/C 261/41)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: TC (represented by: D. Aukštuolytė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and S. Toliušis, Agents)

Re:

By his application based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 16 March 2021 declaring a debt owed by him in the amount of EUR 78 838,21 unduly paid in the form of parliamentary assistance expenses and ordering its recovery and, second, of the debit note No 7010000523 of 31 March 2021.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action for annulment, in so far as it is directed against, first, the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, of 16 March 2021 declaring a debt owed by TC, for a sum unduly paid in the form of parliamentary assistance expenses, and ordering the recovery of that sum and, second, the debit note No 7010000523 of 31 March 2021, in so far as that decision and that note concern the remuneration, social costs and travel expenses relating to A’s employment during the period between 1 April and 22 November 2016, in respect of an amount of EUR 28 083,67; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action for annulment, in so far as it is directed against, first, the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, of 16 March 2021 declaring a debt owed by TC, for a sum unduly paid in the form of parliamentary assistance expenses, and ordering the recovery of that sum and, second, the debit note No 7010000523 of 31 March 2021, in so far as that decision and that note concern the remuneration, social costs and travel expenses relating to A’s employment during the period between 1 April and 22 November 2016, in respect of an amount of EUR 28 083,67;

| 2. | Annuls the abovementioned decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 16 March 2021 and the debit note No 7010000523 of 31 March 2021, in so far as they order the recovery from TC of the remuneration, social costs and travel expenses relating to A’s employment during the period between 22 May 2015 and 31 March 2016, in respect of an amount of EUR 50 754,54; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the abovementioned decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 16 March 2021 and the debit note No 7010000523 of 31 March 2021, in so far as they order the recovery from TC of the remuneration, social costs and travel expenses relating to A’s employment during the period between 22 May 2015 and 31 March 2016, in respect of an amount of EUR 50 754,54;

| 3. | Orders the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Vallegre v EUIPO — Joseph Phelps Vineyards (PORTO INSÍGNIA)

(Case T-33/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark PORTO INSÍGNIA - Earlier EU word mark INSIGNIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 261/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA (Sabrosa, Portugal) (represented by: E. Armero Lavie, G. Marín Raigal and J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC (Saint Helena, California, United States) (represented by: S. Reinhard, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 October 2021 (Case R 894/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — DDR Kultur v EUIPO — Groupe Canal+ (THE PLANET)

(Case T-47/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark THE PLANET - Earlier EU figurative mark PLANÈTE + - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 261/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DDR Kultur UG (haftungsbeschränkt) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Yeboah, lawyer)

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

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 November 2021 (Case R 2385/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 November 2021 (Case R 2385/2020-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 November 2021 (Case R 2385/2020-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by DDR Kultur UG (haftungsbeschränkt) in the proceedings before the Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by DDR Kultur UG (haftungsbeschränkt) in the proceedings before the Court;

| 3. | Orders Groupe Canal+ to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Groupe Canal+ to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Brooks England v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (BROOKS ENGLAND)

(Case T-63/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BROOKS ENGLAND - Earlier EU word mark BROOKS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2023/C 261/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Brooks England Ltd (Smethwick, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Feltrinelli and K. Manhaeve, lawyers)

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

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 November 2021 (Case R 2432/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Brooks England Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Brooks England Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Roxtec and Wallmax v EUIPO — Wallmax and Roxtec (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles)

(Joined Cases T-218/22 and 219/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative trade mark representing a blue square containing eight concentric black circles - absolute ground of invalidity - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 261/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant in Case T-218/22: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-219/22: Wallmax Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Ferrari, L. Goglia and G. Rapaccini, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court in Case T-218/22: Wallmax (Milan) (represented by: F. Ferrari, L. Goglia and C. Rapaccini, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court in Case T-219/22: Roxtec (Karlskrona) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

Re:

By their actions based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant in Case T-218/22 and the applicant in Case T-219/22 seek annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 February 2022 (Case R 1093/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Roxtec AB, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Wallmax Srl to bear their own costs in Case T-218/22; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Roxtec AB, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Wallmax Srl to bear their own costs in Case T-218/22;

| 3. | Orders Wallmax to pay the costs in Case T-219/22. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Wallmax to pay the costs in Case T-219/22.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/33

---

Judgement of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Chocolates Lacasa Internacional v EUIPO — Esquitino Madrid (Conguitos)

(Case T-339/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Conguitos - Earlier EU word mark Conguitos - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relative ground for invalidity - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2023/C 261/46)

Language of the procedure: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Chocolates Lacasa Internacional, SA (Utebo, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix, J. Vicente Martínez and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mariano Esquitino Madrid (Elche, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros and F. Ortega Sánchez, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2022 (Case R 601/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Chocolates Lacasa Internacional, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Chocolates Lacasa Internacional, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cassa Centrale v EUIPO — Bankia (BANQUÌ)

(Case T-368/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark BANQUÌ - Earlier EU figurative mark Bankia - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Distinctive character of the earlier mark)

(2023/C 261/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cassa Centrale Banca — Credito Cooperativo Italiano SpA (Trente, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer, G. Locurto and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

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

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 April 2022 (Case R 1318/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 April 2022 (Case R 1318/2021-1) in so far as it rejected the appeal brought by Cassa Centrale Banca — Credito Cooperativo Italiano SpA in that the application for registration of the word mark BANQUÌ as an EU mark designated goods in Class 9 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 April 2022 (Case R 1318/2021-1) in so far as it rejected the appeal brought by Cassa Centrale Banca — Credito Cooperativo Italiano SpA in that the application for registration of the word mark BANQUÌ as an EU mark designated goods in Class 9 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Cassa Centrale Banca — Credito Cooperativo Italiano and EUIPO each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Cassa Centrale Banca — Credito Cooperativo Italiano and EUIPO each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.8.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS)

(Case T-519/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Procedure for the revocation of decisions or the cancellation of entries - Revocation of a decision containing an obvious error attributable to EUIPO - Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No obvious error)

(2023/C 261/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht, and A.-C. Salger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: European Food SA (Păntășești, Romania) (represented by I. Speciac, lawyer)

Re:

By its action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 June 2022 (Case R 894/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 June 2022 (Case R 894/2020-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 June 2022 (Case R 894/2020-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA;

| 3. | Orders European Food SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders European Food SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 17.10.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Sanity Group v EUIPO — AC Marca Brands (Sanity Group)

(Case T-541/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Sanity Group - Earlier EU figurative mark SANYTOL - Relative ground for refusal - Detriment to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 261/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanity Group GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: B. Koch and V. Wolf, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: AC Marca Brands, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza and J.C. Quero Navarro, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 June 2022 (Case R 2107/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sanity Group GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sanity Group GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 24.10.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — BRM Extremities (BIOPLAN)

(Case T-543/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark BIOPLAN - Earlier national word mark BIOPLAK - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 261/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: BRM Extremities Srl (Milan, Italy)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 June 2022 (Case R 2147/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 24.10.2022.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/36

---

Action brought on 26 April 2023 — WS v EUIPO

(Case T-221/23)

(2023/C 261/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WS (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the selection procedure EXT/22/08/AD6/DTD-Business Analyst; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the selection procedure EXT/22/08/AD6/DTD-Business Analyst;

| — | alternatively, annul the decision of the selection committee of the selection procedure EXT/22/08/AD6/DTD-Business Analyst of 30 June 2022 not to take the applicant’s application any further, in its final form after EUIPO’s rejection of 16 January 2023 of the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of 28 September 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul the decision of the selection committee of the selection procedure EXT/22/08/AD6/DTD-Business Analyst of 30 June 2022 not to take the applicant’s application any further, in its final form after EUIPO’s rejection of 16 January 2023 of the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of 28 September 2022;

| — | order EUIPO to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court to the applicant for the moral and immaterial damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the selection committee of the selection procedure EXT/22/08/AD6/DTD-Business Analyst contested by Request 1; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court to the applicant for the moral and immaterial damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the selection committee of the selection procedure EXT/22/08/AD6/DTD-Business Analyst contested by Request 1;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO violated its obligation of complying with Article 4(1a), (1d), (1f) and (2), Article 17(3) and Article 33(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) Article 5 (1a), (1d), (1f) and (2), Article 15(3) and Article 32(1b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) and the vacancy notice.






  — | The applicant backs this claim especially by submitting that the EUIPO respectively the selection committee failed to properly assess his suitability for the position by not using the latest versions of the documents provided by him. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO violated its obligation of complying with Article 4(1a), (1d), (1f) and (2), Article 17(3) and Article 33(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) Article 5 (1a), (1d), (1f) and (2), Article 15(3) and Article 32(1b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) and the vacancy notice.

—

The applicant backs this claim especially by submitting that the EUIPO respectively the selection committee failed to properly assess his suitability for the position by not using the latest versions of the documents provided by him.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the selection committee committed manifest errors of assessment by not awarding his answers in the talent screener to questions 1 to 5 the maximum achievable score.






  — | He backs his claim by outlining and explaining the abilities and experiences he brought forward in the answers to these questions. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the selection committee committed manifest errors of assessment by not awarding his answers in the talent screener to questions 1 to 5 the maximum achievable score.

—

He backs his claim by outlining and explaining the abilities and experiences he brought forward in the answers to these questions.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016, L 116, p. 1).

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/37

---

Action brought on 3 May 2023 — LW v Commission

(Case T-232/23)

(2023/C 261/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LW (represented by: S. Birenbaum-De Guchteneere and M. Tournay, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the appraisal report for the year 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appraisal report for the year 2020;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appeal assessor dated 13 July 2022 that confirmed the appraisal report for the year 2020 and rejected the appeal of 11 March 2022 (registered under No 507857); |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appeal assessor dated 13 July 2022 that confirmed the appraisal report for the year 2020 and rejected the appeal of 11 March 2022 (registered under No 507857);

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appointing authority dated 24 January 2023 that rejected the complaint filed by a note dated 7 September 2022 (registered under No. R/422/22); |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appointing authority dated 24 January 2023 that rejected the complaint filed by a note dated 7 September 2022 (registered under No. R/422/22);

| — | order compensation for the non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and the breach of Article 2(3) of Commission Decision C(2013) 8985 of 16 December 2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and implementing the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations (the ‘GIP’), Article 5, 6 and 7 of the GIP, manifest error of assessment, misuse of power and breach of the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and the breach of Article 2(3) of Commission Decision C(2013) 8985 of 16 December 2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and implementing the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations (the ‘GIP’), Article 5, 6 and 7 of the GIP, manifest error of assessment, misuse of power and breach of the principle of good administration.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the duty to state reasons, manifest error and breach of the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the duty to state reasons, manifest error and breach of the principle of good administration.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and of Article 1d(1) of the Staff Regulations, and breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and of Article 1d(1) of the Staff Regulations, and breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/38

---

Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Acampora and Others v Commission

(Case T-261/23)

(2023/C 261/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Roberto Acampora (Naples, Italy) and 172 others (represented by: E. Iorio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the express decision of the European Commission of 27 January 2023 (EMPL.C.1/BPM/kt (2023) 633265) refusing the request for access Gestdem No 2023/0263 to the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022, issued by the European Commission to the Italian Republic, and to the Italian Republic’s subsequent response in infringement proceedings 2016/4081, relating to the compatibility with EU law of the national law governing the services provided by magistrati onorari (honorary judges) and to Italy’s response; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the express decision of the European Commission of 27 January 2023 (EMPL.C.1/BPM/kt (2023) 633265) refusing the request for access Gestdem No 2023/0263 to the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022, issued by the European Commission to the Italian Republic, and to the Italian Republic’s subsequent response in infringement proceedings 2016/4081, relating to the compatibility with EU law of the national law governing the services provided by magistrati onorari (honorary judges) and to Italy’s response;

| — | annul the implicit decision of the European Commission of 15 March 2023 refusing the request to confirm the explicit decision by communicating that it was not in a position, for administrative reasons, to respond to the request for confirmation or to state if and when an express response would be given; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implicit decision of the European Commission of 15 March 2023 refusing the request to confirm the explicit decision by communicating that it was not in a position, for administrative reasons, to respond to the request for confirmation or to state if and when an express response would be given;

| — | order the European Commission, in the event of opposition, to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission, in the event of opposition, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, relating to the admissibility of the action. The applicants are exercising a general right of EU citizens to transparency of the work of the institutions in order to obtain the necessary information, according to the right guaranteed to all EU citizens by Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. (1) Knowledge of the letter of formal notice and Italy’s response would give the applicants the practical benefit of exercising their right to information knowing, after almost seven years, the reasons why no reasoned opinion has yet been issued by the Commission. The Commission first issued an express decision refusing access on 27 January 2023 and an implicit refusal decision on 15 March 2023, in which it stated that it is not in a position, for administrative reasons, to respond to the request for confirmation of the decision of 27 January 2023 and that it does not know if or when it will respond. Applicants are entitled to bring an action before the Court against implicit decisions involving implied refusal under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, relating to the admissibility of the action. The applicants are exercising a general right of EU citizens to transparency of the work of the institutions in order to obtain the necessary information, according to the right guaranteed to all EU citizens by Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. (1) Knowledge of the letter of formal notice and Italy’s response would give the applicants the practical benefit of exercising their right to information knowing, after almost seven years, the reasons why no reasoned opinion has yet been issued by the Commission. The Commission first issued an express decision refusing access on 27 January 2023 and an implicit refusal decision on 15 March 2023, in which it stated that it is not in a position, for administrative reasons, to respond to the request for confirmation of the decision of 27 January 2023 and that it does not know if or when it will respond. Applicants are entitled to bring an action before the Court against implicit decisions involving implied refusal under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles with respect to access to documents of the EU institutions provided for in the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1 and the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — the existence of a general interest in accessing the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles with respect to access to documents of the EU institutions provided for in the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1 and the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — the existence of a general interest in accessing the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging non-compliance with the obligation to state reasons for the measures adopted by the European institutions. The principles regarding the statement of reasons have not been complied with, since the Commission submitted only wholly generic and formulaic claims for the reasons why disclosure of the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022 and Italy’s response would undermine the aforementioned ‘climate of trust’; it replied with a form setting out few and meagre items of information which would allow the applicants and the Court to carry out a genuine review of the legality of reasons for the refusal, insufficient reasons having been given for that refusal; that is particularly true as regards the reasons that would have prevented at least partial disclosure of the document, already to some extent disseminated with the infringement package of 15 July 2022, albeit not in such a way as to enable understanding of the content and the reasons for the additional objections made in relation to Italy.
  The express decision of 27 January 2023 containing the contested refusal of access does not set out clearly the reasons on which it is based, their legal basis, the factual basis and the way in which the different relevant interests have been taken into consideration, because the refusal affects the exercise of rights pursuant to Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, with the consequence that, since the adopted measure imposes the limitation of a right recognised by the Treaty in respect of the applicants, consisting in a restriction of such rights, the reasons must be somewhat stricter, more precise and accurate so that the choices made are clearly understandable. The implicit decision of 15 March 2023 is entirely without a statement of reasons and defers sine die the Commission’s decision.
  The refusal of access to the documents referred to is all the more unjustified in the light of the fact that the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022 was published informally on a Facebook page of which thousands of magistrati onorari (honorary judges) are members. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging non-compliance with the obligation to state reasons for the measures adopted by the European institutions. The principles regarding the statement of reasons have not been complied with, since the Commission submitted only wholly generic and formulaic claims for the reasons why disclosure of the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022 and Italy’s response would undermine the aforementioned ‘climate of trust’; it replied with a form setting out few and meagre items of information which would allow the applicants and the Court to carry out a genuine review of the legality of reasons for the refusal, insufficient reasons having been given for that refusal; that is particularly true as regards the reasons that would have prevented at least partial disclosure of the document, already to some extent disseminated with the infringement package of 15 July 2022, albeit not in such a way as to enable understanding of the content and the reasons for the additional objections made in relation to Italy.

The express decision of 27 January 2023 containing the contested refusal of access does not set out clearly the reasons on which it is based, their legal basis, the factual basis and the way in which the different relevant interests have been taken into consideration, because the refusal affects the exercise of rights pursuant to Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, with the consequence that, since the adopted measure imposes the limitation of a right recognised by the Treaty in respect of the applicants, consisting in a restriction of such rights, the reasons must be somewhat stricter, more precise and accurate so that the choices made are clearly understandable. The implicit decision of 15 March 2023 is entirely without a statement of reasons and defers sine die the Commission’s decision.

The refusal of access to the documents referred to is all the more unjustified in the light of the fact that the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022 was published informally on a Facebook page of which thousands of magistrati onorari (honorary judges) are members.

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/39

---

Action brought on 30 May 2023 — Hexal v Commission

(Case T-299/23)

(2023/C 261/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hexal AG (Holzkirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Meier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision; and

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action, which is directed against Commission Implementing Decision [C(2023) 3067 final] of 2 May 2023 amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014) 601 final for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use, relies on two pleas in law.

By its first plea, the applicant submits that there has been a clear infringement of Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) because the authorisation in respect of the new therapeutic indication of Tecfidera was not obtained during the first eight years after the granting of authorisation, but only at a later point in time.

By its second plea, the applicant submits that there has been a manifest error of assessment in the interpretation of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in joined cases C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P (2) and, as a result, the Commission has erred in law in concluding that Tecfidera does not belong to the global marketing authorisation of Fumaderm.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

(2)  Judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma, C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/40

---

Action brought on 30 May 2023 — Red Bull and Others v Commission

(Case T-306/23)

(2023/C 261/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria), Red Bull France SASU (Paris, France), Red Bull Nederland BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Wollmann, F. Urlesberger, J. Schindler and F. Dethmers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission decision C (2023) 1689 final of 8 March 2023 ordering an inspection; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission decision C (2023) 1689 final of 8 March 2023 ordering an inspection;

| — | annul any measure ordered by the Commission as part of the inspection; in particular, the Court should declare the continuation of the inspection inadmissible and order the Commission to return all the copies of documents made and taken by the authority during the inspection; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul any measure ordered by the Commission as part of the inspection; in particular, the Court should declare the continuation of the inspection inadmissible and order the Commission to return all the copies of documents made and taken by the authority during the inspection; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: Manifest unfoundedness of the inspection decision
  Article 1 of the inspection decision should be annulled because the allegations contained therein are manifestly unfounded. Even assuming that the factual assumptions of the Commission were correct (quod non), they would not constitute an infringement of Article 101 or Article 102 TFEU on the basis of the established case-law of the Court of Justice, the Commission’s own guidelines and publicly available information which was available to the Commission before it adopted the inspection decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: Manifest unfoundedness of the inspection decision

Article 1 of the inspection decision should be annulled because the allegations contained therein are manifestly unfounded. Even assuming that the factual assumptions of the Commission were correct (quod non), they would not constitute an infringement of Article 101 or Article 102 TFEU on the basis of the established case-law of the Court of Justice, the Commission’s own guidelines and publicly available information which was available to the Commission before it adopted the inspection decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law: Insufficient indications for the adoption of an inspection decision
  The Commission did not appear to have sufficient indications of anti-competitive behaviour at the time of the adoption of its decision to justify an inspection. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: Insufficient indications for the adoption of an inspection decision

The Commission did not appear to have sufficient indications of anti-competitive behaviour at the time of the adoption of its decision to justify an inspection.

| 3. | Third plea in law: Defective statement of reasons and vagueness of the inspection decision
  Article 1 of the inspection decision should be annulled because it is not sufficiently reasoned and contains an unlimited and unspecific description of the subject matter of the inspection, which does not enable the applicants to identify, in an unequivocal manner, their obligations to cooperate in the inspection. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: Defective statement of reasons and vagueness of the inspection decision

Article 1 of the inspection decision should be annulled because it is not sufficiently reasoned and contains an unlimited and unspecific description of the subject matter of the inspection, which does not enable the applicants to identify, in an unequivocal manner, their obligations to cooperate in the inspection.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the principle of proportionality
  Article 1 of the inspection decision and the further decisions linked to it, which the Commission took during the investigation, should be annulled on the grounds of infringement of the principle of proportionality. This applies in particular to the continuation of the inspection ordered by the Commission, at the defendant’s premises in Brussels and for an unlimited period, which interferes excessively with the applicants’ rights. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the principle of proportionality

Article 1 of the inspection decision and the further decisions linked to it, which the Commission took during the investigation, should be annulled on the grounds of infringement of the principle of proportionality. This applies in particular to the continuation of the inspection ordered by the Commission, at the defendant’s premises in Brussels and for an unlimited period, which interferes excessively with the applicants’ rights.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: Infringement of essential procedural requirements and rights of defence
  The Commission failed to ensure that the competent Austrian authorities had all the means at their disposal to exercise their power of review over the observance of the applicants’ fundamental rights during the inspection. In doing so, the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements and impaired the applicants’ rights of defence. In addition, the Commission infringed the applicants’ right to legal assistance, which is protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: Infringement of essential procedural requirements and rights of defence

The Commission failed to ensure that the competent Austrian authorities had all the means at their disposal to exercise their power of review over the observance of the applicants’ fundamental rights during the inspection. In doing so, the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements and impaired the applicants’ rights of defence. In addition, the Commission infringed the applicants’ right to legal assistance, which is protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/41

---

Action brought on 5 June 2023 — Aliud Pharma v Commission

(Case T-309/23)

(2023/C 261/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aliud Pharma GmbH (Laichingen, Germany) (represented by: P. von Czettritz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision; and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action, which is brought against Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the European Commission Implementing Decision of 2 May 2023 [C(2023)3067 (final)] amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014)601 (final) for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use, is based on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law: Manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers in the interpretation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P (1)

  In this decision, the Court of Justice dealt only with the assessment of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) from 2013 and the Commission’s decision of 30 January 2014. In the meantime, however, there was a new scientific assessment concerning the two substances contained in the medicinal product by the CHMP dated 11 November 2021, which the Court had in no way taken into account in its review of whether the EMA’s non-validation decision of 30 July 2018 was justified. On the basis of that assessment report, however, it was clear that a substance was not an active substance, but only an excipient, with the consequence that the medicinal product fell under the overall authorisation of the initial authorisation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: Manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers in the interpretation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P (1)

In this decision, the Court of Justice dealt only with the assessment of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) from 2013 and the Commission’s decision of 30 January 2014. In the meantime, however, there was a new scientific assessment concerning the two substances contained in the medicinal product by the CHMP dated 11 November 2021, which the Court had in no way taken into account in its review of whether the EMA’s non-validation decision of 30 July 2018 was justified. On the basis of that assessment report, however, it was clear that a substance was not an active substance, but only an excipient, with the consequence that the medicinal product fell under the overall authorisation of the initial authorisation.

| 2. | Second plea in law: Manifest error of assessment in granting an additional year of marketing protection under Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (2)

  Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 provides that the authorisation of a new therapeutic indication which brings a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies must be granted within the first eight years after the grant of the initial authorisation, which is not so in the present case, since the initial authorisation was granted on 30 January 2014 and the authorisation of the new indication was not granted until 13 May 2022. Thus, the condition for the extension of marketing protection by one year pursuant to Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 was not met. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: Manifest error of assessment in granting an additional year of marketing protection under Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (2)

Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 provides that the authorisation of a new therapeutic indication which brings a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies must be granted within the first eight years after the grant of the initial authorisation, which is not so in the present case, since the initial authorisation was granted on 30 January 2014 and the authorisation of the new indication was not granted until 13 May 2022. Thus, the condition for the extension of marketing protection by one year pursuant to Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 was not met.

---

(1)  Judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma, C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Union procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/42

---

Action brought on 7 June 2023 — Naturgy Energy Group v EUIPO — Global Power Service (gps global power service)

(Case T-312/23)

(2023/C 261/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Naturgy Energy Group, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Power Service SpA (Verona, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark gps global power service — Application for registration No 18 001 007

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2023 in Case R 505/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul or revoke the contested decision, in so far as the appeal in Case R 505/2022-4 is dismissed, and grant, in its entirety, the contested mark in respect of all the goods and services sought; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul or revoke the contested decision, in so far as the appeal in Case R 505/2022-4 is dismissed, and grant, in its entirety, the contested mark in respect of all the goods and services sought;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener (if the latter intervenes in this action) to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings before the Operations Department and before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener (if the latter intervenes in this action) to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings before the Operations Department and before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

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

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/43

---

Action brought on 8 June 2023 — Adeva v EUIPO — Sideme (MAISON CAVIST.)

(Case T-313/23)

(2023/C 261/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Adeva (Mitry-Mory, France) (represented by: S. Drillon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société Industrielle d’Equipement Moderne SA (Sideme) (Levallois-Perret, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark MAISON CAVIST. — EU trade mark No 18 293 519

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2023 in Case R 1623/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought by Adeva; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought by Adeva;

| — | dismiss in its entirety the application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU trade mark MAISON CAVIST. No 18 293 519 submitted by Sideme. |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss in its entirety the application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU trade mark MAISON CAVIST. No 18 293 519 submitted by Sideme.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/43

---

Action brought on 8 June 2023 — Tiendanimal v EUIPO (CRIADORES)

(Case T-314/23)

(2023/C 261/59)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Tiendanimal Comercio Electronico de Articulos para Mascotas, SL (Malaga, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative trade mark ‘CRIADORES’ — Application No 18 186 334

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2023 in Case R 798/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | allow the contested trade mark to proceed to registration in Classes 5 and 31. |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the contested trade mark to proceed to registration in Classes 5 and 31.

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), and of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/44

---

Action brought on 9 June 2023 — Pfriem v EUIPO — U-Control (UC)

(Case T-316/23)

(2023/C 261/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hanns Pfriem (Schweinfurt, Germany) (represented by: M. Pütz-Poulalion, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: U-Control Srl (Torrile, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark UC — International registration designating the European Union No 1 569 179

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2023 in Case R 1404/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the opposition No B3146448 in its entirety, and reject the contested application in respect of all contested goods and services;
  in the alternative,
  remit the case to the Board of Appeal for re-examination. |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the opposition No B3146448 in its entirety, and reject the contested application in respect of all contested goods and services;

in the alternative,

remit the case to the Board of Appeal for re-examination.

| — | order EUIPO to bear the applicant’s costs and expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the applicant’s costs and expenses.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | Infringement of Article 27(2) in connection with Article 8(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 27(2) in connection with Article 8(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in connection with Article 33(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in connection with Article 33(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/45

---

Action brought on 12 June 2023 — J&B v EUIPO — Ergün (J&B BRO)

(Case T-318/23)

(2023/C 261/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: J&B Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Thomas and B. Reiter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Engin Ergün (Solingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark J&B BRO — Application No 18 310 846

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 April 2023 in Case R 2012/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | dismiss the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the opposition;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/45

---

Action brought on 12 June 2023 — The Not Company v EUIPO (NOT MILK)

(Case T-320/23)

(2023/C 261/62)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: The Not Company SpA (Santiago, Chile) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, J. Rodríguez-Fuensalida y Carnicero, P. Ramells Higueras, A. Figuerola Moure and P. Muñoz Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark NOT MILK — Application for registration No 18 508 169

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2023 in Case R 2233/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | confirm that the contested decision misapplies Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

confirm that the contested decision misapplies Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the continuation of the processing of the contested mark in Classes 29 and 32 and its subsequent registration. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the continuation of the processing of the contested mark in Classes 29 and 32 and its subsequent registration.

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;

| — | Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and good administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and good administration.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/46

---

Action brought on 12 June 2023 — VN v Commission

(Case T-322/23)

(2023/C 261/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded;
  consequently: |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently:

| — | annul the Commission decision of 4 August 2022, later replaced by the decision of 8 September 2022, ordering the payment of the full amount of the family allowances to the mother of the applicant’s son as from 1 September 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 4 August 2022, later replaced by the decision of 8 September 2022, ordering the payment of the full amount of the family allowances to the mother of the applicant’s son as from 1 September 2015;

| — | annul the Commission decision of 8 September 2022, except for the sub-decision to pay the applicant the education allowances for his son; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 8 September 2022, except for the sub-decision to pay the applicant the education allowances for his son;

| — | accordingly, in line with the principle that the Court cannot issue directions to the institutions, pay the corresponding amount to the applicant (dependent child allowance, household allowance, pre-school allowance from 1 September 2015 to 31 August 2016);






  — | retroactively, for the period from 1 April 2015 to June 2023, (it being specified that that the administration had already paid those allowances to the applicant for five months, between April 2015 and September 2015 inclusive); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

accordingly, in line with the principle that the Court cannot issue directions to the institutions, pay the corresponding amount to the applicant (dependent child allowance, household allowance, pre-school allowance from 1 September 2015 to 31 August 2016);

—

retroactively, for the period from 1 April 2015 to June 2023, (it being specified that that the administration had already paid those allowances to the applicant for five months, between April 2015 and September 2015 inclusive);

| — | plus interest accrued since November 2015, at an average yearly compound interest rate equal to the ECB’s public interest rate for 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

plus interest accrued since November 2015, at an average yearly compound interest rate equal to the ECB’s public interest rate for 2022;

| — | and for the future, as from July 2023; |
| --- | --- |

—

and for the future, as from July 2023;

| — | in so far as may be necessary, annul the Commission decision of 2 March 2023 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 4 November 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as may be necessary, annul the Commission decision of 2 March 2023 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 4 November 2022;

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

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and manifest errors of assessment in applying those articles, since there is no order of court granting custody of the applicant’s son to the child’s mother. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and manifest errors of assessment in applying those articles, since there is no order of court granting custody of the applicant’s son to the child’s mother.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/47

---

Action brought on 13 June 2023 — J. García Carrión v EUIPO — Calipso (LimoLife)

(Case T-324/23)

(2023/C 261/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: J. García Carrión, SA (Jumilla, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Calipso SRL (Afumati, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark LimoLife — Application for registration No 18 352 014

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2023 in Case R 1258/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul or revoke the contested decision, in so far as the appeal in Case R 1258/2022-1 is dismissed, reject Opposition No B 3 142 838, and grant the contested mark in its entirety in respect of all the goods in question; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul or revoke the contested decision, in so far as the appeal in Case R 1258/2022-1 is dismissed, reject Opposition No B 3 142 838, and grant the contested mark in its entirety in respect of all the goods in question;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener (if the latter intervenes in this action) to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings before the Operations Department and before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener (if the latter intervenes in this action) to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings before the Operations Department and before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

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

---

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/48

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2023 — QZ v EIB

(Case T-569/22) (1)

(2023/C 261/65)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 451, 28.11.2022.

---

Corrigenda

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/49

---

Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-302/22

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 276 of 18 July 2022
  )

(2023/C 261/66)

The notice in the Official Journal in Case T-302/22, Vinokurov v Council should read as follows:

Action brought on 23 May 2022 — Vinokurov v Council

(Case T-302/22)

(2022/C 276/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alexander Semenovich Vinokurov (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: É. Épron and J. Choucroun, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present application for annulment admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present application for annulment admissible and well founded;

| — | partially annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 (1) of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures with regard to actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns Mr Alexander Vinokurov; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 (1) of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures with regard to actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns Mr Alexander Vinokurov;

| — | partially annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022 (2) implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine in so far as it concerns Mr Alexander Vinokurov; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022 (2) implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine in so far as it concerns Mr Alexander Vinokurov;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings;

| — | reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies and actions. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of sufficiently precise and specific reasons in support of the act complained of. In support of that plea, the applicant submits, inter alia, that the Council’s reasons refer to sectors of activity, whereas the criteria referred to in Decision CFSP 2022/397 refer only to specific persons. The applicant also alleges that the criterion relating to the provision of substantial revenue is not specified and that the use of the grounds does not correspond to any relevant criteria raised by the Council. Finally, the applicant considers that the ground relating to the support or implementation of actions or policies differs from the relevant criterion, which is ‘material or financial’ support for the Government of the Russian Federation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of sufficiently precise and specific reasons in support of the act complained of. In support of that plea, the applicant submits, inter alia, that the Council’s reasons refer to sectors of activity, whereas the criteria referred to in Decision CFSP 2022/397 refer only to specific persons. The applicant also alleges that the criterion relating to the provision of substantial revenue is not specified and that the use of the grounds does not correspond to any relevant criteria raised by the Council. Finally, the applicant considers that the ground relating to the support or implementation of actions or policies differs from the relevant criterion, which is ‘material or financial’ support for the Government of the Russian Federation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the relevant criteria used by it, namely, material or financial support for Russian decision-makers, taking advantage of the Government of the Russian Federation or providing a substantial source of income to that Government. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the relevant criteria used by it, namely, material or financial support for Russian decision-makers, taking advantage of the Government of the Russian Federation or providing a substantial source of income to that Government.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, on the grounds that the extension of the inclusion criteria now makes it possible to penalise persons with no connection with the situation in Ukraine. Thus, it is argued that the Council refers to the provision of substantial sources of income by certain sectors of activity but does not consider either the applicant’s market share in those sectors or the applicant’s capital holding in the companies mentioned. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, on the grounds that the extension of the inclusion criteria now makes it possible to penalise persons with no connection with the situation in Ukraine. Thus, it is argued that the Council refers to the provision of substantial sources of income by certain sectors of activity but does not consider either the applicant’s market share in those sectors or the applicant’s capital holding in the companies mentioned.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the applicant’s rights of defence and effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the applicant’s rights of defence and effective judicial protection.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine(OJ 2022 L 80, p. 31).

1

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 80, p. 1).

2

---